Oral Answers to Questions

HOME DEPARTMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Asylum Seekers

Bob Blizzard: What plans he has to establish reception centres outside the European Union for processing asylum applications.

Beverley Hughes: The Home Secretary presented the Government's proposals for new international approaches to asylum processing and refugee protection to his European Union counterparts on 28 March. Positive and constructive discussions are continuing with other member states, the European Commission and relevant international bodies, such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. We are looking to the Commission to bring back its considerations at the next European Council meeting in June, and we will take a view then on the next steps.

Bob Blizzard: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, and urge my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to continue to press his proposals. My hon. Friend the Minister will know that Australia uses the island country of Nauru as a centre for processing asylum applications. Is not the great benefit of that system that it has almost resulted in the end of people trafficking into Australia? If we could use such a system to bear down on the trafficking of people into the European Union, could we not speed the processing of applications, to the benefit of genuine asylum seekers, while avoiding the problems that we experience in trying to deport unsuccessful applicants?

Beverley Hughes: Certainly, we developed the proposals in part because we believed that the sum total of countries' asylum systems—the global asylum system—is failing, and particularly failing refugees. Because refugees have to enter countries illegally, one of the perverse effects of the current system is that it has fuelled the rise of criminal gangs that smuggle people for profit. My hon. Friend is right that cutting out the criminal gangs would be an important consequence of processing claims in a third country. It would not only deter people from illegal entry, thereby starving the gangs of their supply, but help reduce both the high level of criminality associated with that activity as well as the risk and misery that often accompany those who have to rely on people smugglers.

Peter Viggers: With many economic migrants claiming political asylum and making a mockery of our immigration rules, with accommodation centres proving extremely unpopular, as witnessed by the 32,000 signatures on the petition against an accommodation centre at Lee-on-the-Solent, and with the deportation targets now being completely abandoned, is it not clear that the present system is not working and cannot be made to work? If the Government choose to follow Conservative policies on this occasion, we shall not complain but congratulate them.

Beverley Hughes: If we look back over the past 18 years, it is not clear what Conservative policies on asylum were; in fact, it was an abject neglect of asylum policy that led to the current situation. If the hon. Gentleman looks back over the Labour Government's policies, he will see that we are taking action domestically, and jointly with France, to secure our borders and legislating to reduce unfounded claims and deal with them more effectively. As well as improving the efficiency of the system that we inherited from the Conservatives, he will see that those domestic measures and international measures, together with the UNHCR proposals to look again at the implementation of the convention, are the way to deal with the current problem—not the 18 years of neglect that we saw under the Conservatives.

Neil Gerrard: I welcome the proposal that will allow people to make asylum applications from outside the UK. Can my hon. Friend give us more information about how such centres will be set up? What agreements will be necessary with the countries in which they are placed? Who will actually make decisions in those centres? Is it intended that the UNHCR will decide who is to be allowed to come to the UK, or will Home Office or Foreign Office officials be working in those countries when the centres are established?

Beverley Hughes: I thank my hon. Friend for his questions, which are relevant and important. He has clearly given much thought to some of the implications of the proposals. We are considering them and discussing them with other member states and the UNHCR. There are several options on who would determine the claims. It may be important for individual member states to participate jointly in the enterprise to ensure that they have a presence and ownership of decision making. It is equally important to develop a mechanism that has the international credibility that the involvement of the UNHCR, and perhaps of the International Organisation for Migration, would give us, so that all member states can be assured that the centres are operated with a degree of independence and credibility.
	I cannot give my hon. Friend detailed answers to his questions, except to tell him that all the details are important and that is precisely what we are exploring at present.

Dominic Grieve: I welcome the hon. Lady's comments and the substantial move that the Government have taken towards a policy that the Conservative party has been advocating. Will the Government go further and consider applying a quota system, which would be much fairer in allowing in larger numbers of genuine asylum seekers while ensuring, through the UNHCR, that the determination of the applications takes place abroad? Has she any comment to make to the House about the amount of money that might be saved by that system and how that money might then be used in the Home Office budget?

Beverley Hughes: I am glad that the Conservative party is hanging on to our coat tails in agreeing that that is a sensible way forward. In fact, the proposals arose from the extensive research that the Home Secretary put in train, which looked in great detail at the situation globally. We do not support the Conservative party's policy of a fixed quota. Clearly, in addition to the status determination issue that I raised earlier, there would have to be an agreement about how the claims accepted in the processing centres would be shared among the participating countries, but that is very different from having an absolute quota for the United Kingdom itself. Of course, a big question that arises with quotas is what happens to the person who comes after the quota has been reached. For example, how would Opposition Members deal with the claimant from Zimbabwe who arrived after the quota had been reached? Would they send that person back? Perhaps they would be interested in answering that.
	On costs, we certainly think that the proposal offers a completely different way to use our resources more effectively, not least because it enables us to offer more effective protection and ensure that more of our resources are spent helping refugees throughout the world, rather than processing largely unfounded asylum claims.

Gun Amnesty

Piara S Khabra: If he will make a statement on the gun amnesty.

David Blunkett: The gun amnesty has been a substantial success. By 23 April, the police had taken in 17,216 guns and 483,000 rounds of ammunition. In the west midlands and south Wales, they have taken in two rocket launchers and, in Cumbria, they have taken in hand grenades. We believe that the fact that those weapons are not available for use by criminals is a great success.

Piara S Khabra: I thank the Home Secretary for his decision to grant a gun amnesty, and I congratulate him on the early success on this important issue, which concerns many of my constituents. May I draw his attention to the fact that guns have been used in my constituency and a number of people have been killed? What further steps are the Government taking to address that complex problem?

David Blunkett: As my hon. Friend will know, the Criminal Justice Bill will be amended to provide a five-year minimum sentence for carrying a gun, the measures that we have announced on Brocock and converted guns and the new measures in relation to age and other aspects of the ownership of air weapons. Those measures, together with the consultation that we have undertaken across the country, and the work with young people, as well as appropriate communities, are already yielding fruit. The recall of the round table meeting, which will take place this Wednesday, is intended to take that further.

Mark Field: Despite the Home Secretary's words, it is clear that the gun amnesty has been an abject failure in parts of London. Will he make it clear that, rather than putting more statutes on to the statute book, efforts will be made to ensure that we have proper enforcement in London? That involves a vast increase in police numbers, which is what most Londoners now demand.

David Blunkett: The two things are not coterminous. The need for additional police in London is undeniable, and we are doing something about it—such as investing more than 6 per cent. this year alone in terms of resources for London. But let me challenge the hon. Gentleman head-on: why does he say that the amnesty been a failure? In three weeks, 17,000 weapons have been handed in, compared with 23,000 immediately after the Dunblane tragedy, when the last amnesty took place. I do not think that 17,000 weapons and 483,000 rounds of ammunition being handed in is a failure; it is a substantial success.

Jim Marshall: We all welcome the success of the amnesty, but does my right hon. Friend really believe his assertion that it will affect the availability of guns to criminals who wish to use them in the furtherance of crime?

David Blunkett: I would not have said it if I did not believe it. The 8,500 shotguns, which are stolen and used to kill other people, are significant. It is true that a percentage of deaths from gun crime, particularly in the Metropolitan London area, involve converted weapons. Converted shotguns and other weapons are included in the 17,000 that have been handed in. Let us rejoice in what we are achieving rather than continually belittling the progress that is being made.

Sydney Chapman: Do the Government have any way of estimating how many guns are held illegally? Is he satisfied that the provisions in the Criminal Justice Bill will be sufficient to ensure a significant downturn in the number of gun crimes, which, as the Home Secretary will know, have gone up by 80 per cent. in the last six years?

David Blunkett: I do not believe that the measures in the Criminal Justice Bill alone will achieve the goal. As we have said all along—this was the outcome of the consultation—it requires not only a change in culture but a commitment by those communities most affected by and most likely to be the victims of gun crime. The second issue that the hon. Gentleman raises is whether I believe that the five-year sentence is likely to be successful in deterring people. I believe that it is: not on its own but in sending out a signal. If we can get those messages across, we will encourage communities and individuals to be part of that solution.

Juries

Bill Tynan: What plans he has to increase the protection of jury members from intimidation and threats.

Hilary Benn: The Government are making provision in the Criminal Justice Bill for trial by judge alone in cases involving jury tampering and the risk of intimidation. A number of measures already exist to protect jurors and the proposals in the Bill seek to deal with the very small number of cases that those measures cannot address satisfactorily.

Bill Tynan: I thank my hon. Friend for his response. Does he accept that the protection of jurors and witnesses is vital to the criminal justice system? What discussion has he had with the Labour-led Scottish Executive on providing secure, safe, separate witness areas in courtrooms? Does he believe that such a proposal should be universally adopted?

Hilary Benn: I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of providing effective protection for both jurors and witnesses. I have not had any such discussions because those matters are, of course, entirely for the Scottish Parliament. As I am sure he will know, we have already taken a number of steps to tackle the problem, including separate waiting rooms, although that is not always possible in all courts, and enabling people to give evidence from behind a screen or by a television link. The importance of the measures contained in the Criminal Justice Bill is that they will send out a clear message to anyone who thinks that there is benefit to be gained by trying to suborn a jury that it will not succeed. If they seek to do so, the criminal justice system will have an effective response to make sure that justice can be served.

James Gray: Is the Minister aware of the comments of his noble Friend Baroness Helena Kennedy, who described the proposals in the Bill as a
	"wholesale assault on civil liberties"
	and a "knee-jerk reaction"? If he does not agree with her, what guarantee exists that the proposals in the Bill will not fundamentally undermine the right to trial by jury?

Hilary Benn: I do not accept that the proposals in the Criminal Justice Bill to deal with the intimidation of jurors constitute an assault on civil liberties. On the contrary, those who seek to suborn jurors are trying to undermine the criminal justice system, and it is right that we should have effective measures to prevent that.
	The second point is that a very strict test has to be passed before the new provisions come into play. In the first instance, there must be a real and present danger that jury tampering would take place, and it must be the case that either the level and duration of the trial would be such as to place an excessive burden on the juror or that any other measures that could be taken, including 24-hour police protection, would not be sufficient, so that, in the interests of justice, the trial should be conducted without a jury. The House will recognise that that is a strict test to deal with a small number of serious situations in which attempts are made to subvert the course of justice.

Metropolitan Police Force

Tom Cox: How many police officers are serving in the Metropolitan police force; and how many were serving in May 1997.

Bob Ainsworth: The Metropolitan Police Service had 26,868 police officers on 30 September last year, 191 more than in March 1997. The increase should be seen in the light of boundary changes that have reduced the metropolitan area. In addition, the Metropolitan police have 498 community support officers, and the Metropolitan Police Authority's budget for this financial year allows for an increase of 1,200 officers by March next year.

Tom Cox: I note that reply and welcome the improvements that have been made and, according to my hon. Friend, will continue to be made. Is he aware that many London Members such as me, who have large ethnic communities in our constituencies, are deeply concerned about the lack of police officers, men or women, who come from an ethnic background? London's police force is totally unrepresentative of its population. Will my hon. Friend and his Department urgently consider the recruitment of ethnic police officers, men or women, into the Metropolitan police?

Bob Ainsworth: My hon. Friend raises an important point, and it is not only recruitment but retention that we need to bear in mind. The Metropolitan police have 1,286 officers from ethnic minorities, which is 4.9 per cent. of the force strength. That is well above the national average, but of course it is nowhere near a reflection of the community that the force is policing, so we need to continue all our efforts not only to recruit but to retain officers from ethnic minorities.

Simon Hughes: Ministers will know that the beginnings of the increase in numbers in the Met are very welcome, but is that recruitment at the expense of other police forces in the country? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that six police forces—City of London, Merseyside, Cumbria, Staffordshire, Sussex and West Yorkshire—have between them lost 633 officers in the same time, even though their council tax increase this year is, on average, 29 per cent.? Nine forces have had no increase at all—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is out of order.

Simon Hughes: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Martin Linton: Will my hon. Friend continue increasing police officers in the Met until they number 28,000 and, in due course, 30,000? We recognise that the increase, together with the appointment of street patrols and community support officers, has already borne fruit in the form of the sharp reduction in street crime that the Home Secretary was able to announce last year in Wandsworth.

Bob Ainsworth: We intend to continue investing in the crime fighting fund opposed by the Conservative party. The increase in police numbers in the Met is far higher than the 191 that I mentioned because the boundary changes effectively result in 890 officers moving from the Met to other forces. The increase, boundary for boundary, is already of the order of 1,000 and, as I said, the new budget for the coming year allows for the further recruitment of 1,200 officers.

John Wilkinson: Having recently finished the parliamentary police service scheme, I pay the highest tribute to the quality of officers serving in the Metropolitan police, regardless of their ethnic background. While it is welcome that an extra 1,200 uniformed personnel are expected by March next year, in my borough of Hillingdon we are promised only one extra uniformed officer. Will the Minister therefore consider appointing reserve officers, who will meet exactly the same criteria for training and experience as the regular force, but will be paid only when they serve, not as specials but as regular reservists?

Bob Ainsworth: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments about the quality of people coming into the Metropolitan Police Service irrespective or their racial background, but may I correct him in one regard? There will be more than 1,200 additional uniformed staff—he and his colleagues like to forget that, as well as those extra police officers, there are already 500 community support officers in the Met, and their numbers will be augmented in the year ahead. The allocation in the Metropolitan Police Service is a matter for the commissioner, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not believe that it is for the Home Secretary or me to tell him where he should deploy that force.

David Taylor: Last year's pay reform package allowed police authorities and, indeed, the Met to make special priority payments to officers where there are recruitment or retention difficulties, greater than average responsibilities or where the needs of the job are more demanding than average. The Police Federation points out that in some cases that has had a perverse effect, leading to constables being paid more than sergeants, sergeants more than inspectors and inspectors more than higher ranks. Does the Minister believe that that is good for the effective organisation of the Metropolitan police?

Bob Ainsworth: We wanted to reward police officers on the front line and those whose performance is exceptional, and have sought to do so. Of course, we will keep the way in which those payments have been arranged and made under review, along with the Association of Chief Police Officers, the commissioner and the Metropolitan Police Authority.

Oliver Letwin: In common with every other questioner, I welcome the slight increase in numbers in the Metropolitan police, but does the Minister accept that the lesson of New York is that it is not a slight increase that is required but a step change in the numbers of police officers in London? Does he accept that, as part of a national programme of adding 40,000 extra police officers, we need to add about 8,000 in London to get to the point where the level of policing in London is comparable to that in New York?

Bob Ainsworth: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman—[Hon. Members: "Answer the question."] I shall just ask him, if I may, to go back to his figures on New York. He may have noticed that there has been a drop in police numbers there in the past few years. He should not underestimate the number of additional police officers here. As I have said, taking boundary changes into account, there are already 1,000 additional police officers in the Metropolitan area, and there are plans for a further 1,200. The right hon. Gentleman comes up with these ideas but how he is going to pay for additional police officers? Who knows where that money will come from? He belittles the fact that we have record numbers of police officers, something that his party failed to achieve when in government.

Oliver Letwin: I am grateful to the Minister for giving the House a taste of the various rhetorical devices that the Government have used to avoid addressing this question. I wonder whether we can strip away the party political badinage for a moment, because Question Time is a good opportunity to try to get clear answers to difficult questions. It is clear that the Minister has two options, and I hope that he can tell us which one he is choosing. One is that he does not accept, for some reason or other, that a step change is needed in the level of policing in London, and the other is that he accepts that one is needed, but does not have the funds to achieve it because it is not one of the Government's priorities. Which of those two positions is the Minister taking in the face of our proposal for an increase of 8,000 officers in London and 40,000 in the country as a whole?

Bob Ainsworth: The right hon. Gentleman should at least accept that, in the 12 months to September 2002, there were an additional 4,337 officers, which is the biggest single increase in any one year since 1976—when a Labour Government were in power. How on earth does he reconcile his promises on police numbers with the insistence of his hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) on a 20 per cent. cut in public service spending? The right hon. Gentleman cannot do so despite his best endeavours.

Terrorism

John MacDougall: What extra resources he has committed to combat terrorism in the UK in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement.

David Blunkett: The Budget last year allocated £87 million for counter-terrorism. That was supplemented by votes from individual Government Departments. In April this year, I announced a further £330 million, which was allocated from this year's Budget.

John MacDougall: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. There are much welcomed improvements in Northern Ireland, including the peace treaty, and we hope for longer-term peace following the post-Iraq situation. However, global terrorism remains a threat to the world. There is public concern and concern in the House. Can he give us some reassurance? What are the Government doing to inform the public about counter-terrorism activities?

David Blunkett: I accept entirely the international action against rogue states. The tremendous efforts of my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland continue to build on the progress that has been made in peace in Northern Ireland. There is still a major and outstanding threat from cells and networks that have been accepted throughout the House as being a risk to us. That is why we all have a part to play, and why we set up the website on 19 March: 275,000 pages have been accessed by individuals since then. That indicates that people wish to have information and to be part of the solution.

Nicholas Soames: I welcome the additional money and pay tribute to the work of the intelligence services, the police and other law enforcement agencies in combating a real and extremely serious threat. Does the Home Secretary agree that the threat is not just terrorism from Ireland, and Northern Ireland, but particularly from elsewhere in the world, and that it is a bubbling problem, especially in some of our metropolitan areas? Does he agree that it is important that we regain a handle on who leaves the country, as well as on those who come into it? What plans does he have to deal with that problem?

David Blunkett: First, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the nature of terrorism has shifted, so a real threat remains. Secondly, successive Governments have struggled with how best to monitor those who depart, in circumstances where we do not have identity cards, although we have invested quite heavily in the past two years in appropriate surveillance equipment at ports. Unlike many places in the world, we have fluidity in terms of people coming in and out of the country. In the United States, for example, a tiny fraction of the population has a passport, but more than 30 million of our population regularly move in and out of the country, while 90 million travel through our airports. This is a real challenge, and one that we need to examine.

Nick Hawkins: After many weeks of an obvious gap in combating terrorism, will the Home Secretary tell us when he proposes to announce a new Minister of State with responsibilities for chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear attack? If not, why not?

David Blunkett: Until my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister determines a comprehensive reshuffle, the post that was occupied by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) has been occupied by Lord Falconer, who has been working directly to me. I have taken on further responsibilities in addition to the counter-terrorism measures that I already held, including all the work that we do with MI5.

Asylum Seekers

Anne Campbell: What the expected waiting time is for an asylum seeker to hear whether an application has been successful.

Beverley Hughes: The targets that we set for reducing the time taken for decisions on asylum claims have so far been met, and most new applicants can now expect to receive an initial decision within two months. The latest period for which there are confirmed statistics is April to September 2002, when 76 per cent. of new substantive applications received initial decisions within two months.

Anne Campbell: That is, indeed, welcome news, but will my hon. Friend consider ways of improving the flow of information to asylum seekers about the progress of their application? I am sure that she is aware that at present many asylum seekers find that their only source of information is their local MP. That puts a heavy burden on many hon. Members, who have a heavy asylum work load.

Beverley Hughes: I am well aware that many asylum seekers want to use their MP—I have signed a large number of such letters today, as I do every week. I understand the pressure that that creates on Members of Parliament. There is an issue for some of the representatives and solicitors of asylum seekers, and the commissioner is looking into the effectiveness of all the people who undertake that duty. Some of the solicitors and representatives are not keeping people fully informed. The inspector of prisons raised that issue recently in relation to people in detention. I am actively seeking to ensure that we provide a good flow of information for people in the detained estate.

Julian Brazier: Does the Minister accept that the best way of ensuring not just a rapid initial application, but a rapid full process, with deportation for those who fail, is by means of an overseas centre? Will she confirm the reply that she appeared to give me four weeks ago, that the kind of overseas centre that the Government have in mind would consider only applications from abroad, and not from the very large numbers of people still arriving in this country?

Beverley Hughes: As I said earlier, we are considering in detail which asylum seekers who claimed in-country should be transported to a transit processing centre abroad. That is one of the potential benefits of the scheme, but it would not necessarily be the most efficient way of processing every single application. We have already made great progress with, for instance, non-suspensive appeals and the safe country list, which have enabled us to deal quickly with people in those categories. It might not make sense to transport those people; it might make sense to keep them in this country, continue to process them quickly and remove them, as we are doing for those categories.
	The biggest obstacle to making sure that we have an end-to-end view of a cohort of people and how long each stage is taking has been the lack of a good computer system. The hon. Gentleman may remember that the Conservative Government's promise to deliver such a system failed and led to some of the problems that we now face.

Jeremy Corbyn: Can the Minister help with a particular problem that has emerged? Quite often, a successful asylum applicant's solicitor or representative gets a notice stating that they are to be granted indefinite leave to remain. At that point, the National Asylum Support Service withdraws support and the asylum applicant loses housing benefit and any other financial benefit, yet there seems to be a succession of inordinate delays before the status letter is sent out. Thus, successful asylum applicants end up in penury, awaiting a simple letter that will enable them to get benefits, work and somewhere to live. That is causing enormous hardship to a number of successful applicants. Can the Minister do something about it?

Beverley Hughes: I accept that, as my hon. Friend says, that has been a problem in some cases. We are working with the Department for Work and Pensions to find ways of speeding up the process in all cases. It is not an overwhelmingly large problem, but I am aware that it has existed, and I agree that in all cases we must be quicker in getting those status letters out.

James Paice: Does the Minister accept that the time taken to process and notify applicants is a direct function of the number of them? Is the Prime Minister's pledge to halve the number of asylum seekers by September to be believed? If it is, precisely what impact does the Minister expect that to have on the time taken to process and notify applicants? Will she confirm that the last time the number of asylum seekers was half the level at which it was in September—her baseline figure—the cost was barely more than half the present cost? In other words, the Government will be spending close to £1 billion less if they meet the Prime Minister's targets already announced.

Beverley Hughes: First, clearly, the total volume of the intake of new claims is a significant determinant of how we can manage all stages of the process: initial decisions, appeals and the money required to support people during the process. That is why our top priority, in addition to removing people, is to reduce the intake. On the hon. Gentleman's specific question about our commitment to reduce that to half by September, I can tell him that it is to be believed. I have every reason to believe that we will achieve it with what we have put in place already, let alone measures that are to come on line. That will have significant implications on the amount that we must spend on the whole system.

Community Support Officers

Vernon Coaker: What plans he has to increase the provision for community support officers.

Bob Ainsworth: Last year, we provided £19 million of funding for 27 police forces. They have recruited 1,338 community support officers. This year, £41 million is available to continue to support the existing CSOs and to provide for further growth. The results of the second bidding round will be announced shortly.

Vernon Coaker: Many of us think that the introduction of community support officers is a very welcome initiative to tackle antisocial behaviour, which is one of the scourges of modern society. When my hon. Friend considers increasing the number of community support officers and their distribution, will he ensure that divisions outside inner-city areas are also considered so that we have a fair distribution of CSOs to tackle antisocial behaviour in all our communities, including my own in south Nottinghamshire?

Bob Ainsworth: We have received bids in the second round from forces that did not apply the first time. By the end of that round, the overwhelming majority of police forces throughout the length and breadth of the country will have recruited CSOs in either year one or year two. The way in which forces deploy CSOs is a matter for their operational determination.

Vincent Cable: Can the Minister explain the anomaly that community support officers—welcome as they are—can be recruited through the crime fighting fund, whereas the recruitment of retired police officers, who are extremely valuable because of their experience and specialist skills, cannot be given the same priority to access that finance?

Bob Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman is incorrect. The crime fighting fund exists for the recruitment of police officers, not CSOs.

Iraq

Tam Dalyell: What the evidential basis was for his statement in the United States on the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

David Blunkett: The United Kingdom consistently maintained that Iraq continued to pursue the development of weapons of mass destruction. This assertion was based on the first report by the executive chairman of UNSCOM, Richard Butler. Saddam's regime had not provided, and never did provide, any evidence to support its claims that its weapons of mass destruction programmes were no longer active. Refusing unfettered access to unsupervised scientists and constant changes to declarations relating to relevant materials underlined the Government's belief in the existence of such potential.

Tam Dalyell: Could the Home Secretary forgive a tinge of scepticism, as it appears that all that stuff about weapons of mass destruction was got from a website by Mr. Campbell's young things? It was not even run past the Joint Intelligence Committee, which was only 50 yards up the corridor. It would have been very simple to consult the JIC. What happens now about all the accusations of forgery by Dr. el-Baradei in relation to the yellow cake for which Iraq was supposed to have asked Niger? Just forgive us our scepticism.

David Blunkett: My hon. Friend is entitled to his scepticism and we are entitled to address the reality, which is that the uranium that he mentions, which was in the Government's assessment last September, was, according to all the intelligence available to us, being sought in considerable quantities from Africa. We have no reason to believe that that intelligence evidence from several sources was incorrect. The priority since the end of the three-and-a-half week conflict has been, of course, to restore civil society, protect the civilian population, restore medical provision and ensure humanitarian aid. The process of finding what Saddam Hussein has been up to will be long and difficult, but I am absolutely certain that the majority of hon. Members believe that we have brought about a situation in which peace in the middle east, and peace and prosperity for the people of Iraq, can be obtained.

David Cameron: Does the Home Secretary agree that it would not be at all surprising if some of the people responsible for either developing those weapons of mass destruction or harbouring or running them were to apply for asylum in this country now that the conflict is over? Does he also agree that it would be quite wrong for anyone associated with the regime or the Ba'ath party to be granted asylum? Will he ensure that that is the case?

David Blunkett: I agree with myself on that. We have made it clear that those who have been engaged in any way with the regime and its actions against its people or its threat to others would be automatically disqualified from receiving asylum. That is true under the 1951 convention and our domestic law. We will stick to that, whoever it is and whatever posts they held in the Saddam regime.

Prisoners (Dependent Children)

Huw Edwards: What proportion of (a) male and (b) female prison inmates have dependent children.

Hilary Benn: Information on the number of prisoners with dependent children is not routinely collected. However, surveys conducted between 1994 and 2000 indicated that 59 per cent. of men and 66 per cent. of women had dependent children. The Prison Service works closely with family support groups in maintaining prisoners' family ties.

Huw Edwards: May I suggest to my hon. Friend that such information should be routinely collected and published? Does he note from the "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" trial that the judge stated that he was not going to give an immediate prison sentence to Major Ingram and his wife because they had dependent children, yet many working-class women get immediate prison sentences for relatively minor offences when they have dependent children? Does my hon. Friend agree with the Halliday report that there must be more consistency and, if that principle is to be applied, that it must be done so more broadly? [Interruption.]

Hilary Benn: I am just waiting for the outbreak of coughing to subside.
	I agree that there needs to be greater consistency. On the collection of information, part of the difficulty is that 200,000 or so people pass through prison every year and prisoners may not always choose to give correct information about their family circumstances when they are first questioned. However, we have just completed the second of our resettlement surveys of about 2,000 prisoners who are about to leave prison and who may be more inclined to give accurate information about their family circumstances and those relating to their children. We shall publish that later in the year.
	My hon. Friend is right to suggest that the importance of maintaining family ties to reduce reoffending is now better understood across the criminal justice system. It is one reason why the Prison Service is working much more in partnership with voluntary organisations to maintain family links. I saw a good example of that at Wayland prison in the eastern region, where, as a result of our partnership with the Lankelly Foundation and the Ormiston Children and Families Trust, it is operating an all-day visits facility for children so that they can spend time with their fathers.

John Bercow: The hon. Gentleman's emollience is all very well, but what plans does he have to stop or minimise the operation of the "churn"—the phenomenon whereby often large-scale movements and transfers of prisoners take place, critically at short or no notice—given that the effect of those disruptive movements damages the chance of training, undermines the prospects of rehabilitation and reduces the links between prisoners and their families?

Hilary Benn: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the disadvantages that the phenomenon of churn, which he accurately described, creates for prisons in trying to work with prisoners and for prisoners themselves. One of the answers is to provide additional prison places so that we can reduce the rate of churn, which is precisely what the Government are doing, as he will be only too well aware.

Identity Cards

Paul Marsden: If he will make a statement on plans to introduce identity cards.

Beverley Hughes: We published a consultation paper on entitlement cards and identity fraud on 3 July 2002. We are at the moment making a detailed assessment of the 2,000 responses received to the consultation exercise, which ended on 31 July. Many organisations and individuals have expressed support for a card scheme, and that has been backed up by other research on the public's views, which we will publish alongside our response.

Paul Marsden: Does the Minister agree with what the assistant information commissioner, Jonathan Bamford, said about the idea of an ID card:
	"Do we risk changing the fabric of our society so that the highest level of identification becomes the norm for the most mundane of services"?
	Let us bear in mind that, when Labour was in opposition, it said that the cost of such a scheme—some £600 million—would be better spent on extra police officers.

Beverley Hughes: No, I do not agree with those comments. It is interesting that the Information Commissioner himself has said that there are no insurmountable privacy or data protection obstacles in respect of such a scheme and has welcomed some of the Home Secretary's proposals about how legislation might be implemented if the Government decide to take that course of action.

Chris Mullin: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the main issues will be whether there are better things to do with the £2 billion or £3 billion cost of introducing ID cards? Will she give an undertaking that any estimates received from IT companies of the cost of introducing them will be treated with great scepticism in the light of previous such estimates?

Beverley Hughes: In terms of the benefits of a particular scheme, my hon. Friend will make up his own mind on the basis of the consultation paper that we circulated and the discussions that have taken place. As I said, the 2,000 responses that we have received from individuals show that ordinary members of the public generally do not share his concerns. The responses have been about 2:1 in favour of introducing a scheme.
	I also point out that the proposal does not involve investing large amounts of public money, although some up-front expenditure would certainly be involved. The cost of the scheme would be borne by individuals as they applied for cards, just as people will have to apply for passport and driving licence cards in the fulness of time, as those provisions are also coming on line and people will have to make a payment for them.

Nick Gibb: Does the Minister not realise that when Australia tried out the proposal to introduce an ID card, it was initially enormously popular, but only until people realised how much personal information Government officials would have access to? As a result, the proposal became the Australian equivalent of the poll tax and was dropped in the face of mass demonstrations and huge public hostility.

Beverley Hughes: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman has read the consultation paper, but if he has, he will recall that what is being proposed is not a card that would hold large amounts of information. It would be a gateway providing a very secure identity access to other databases for the individual, but the particular databases to which the card might give access would obviously be determined through the process of legislation on which we would embark. It would not be able to add to those through any other mechanism, so Parliament would have its say.

Tony Banks: A system of compulsory identity cards would be a very useful tool in dealing with the upsurge and recurrence of football hooliganism. What discussions have taken place between the Home Department and the English Football Association regarding the forthcoming match against Turkey in Istanbul? If the Football Association does not make any tickets available to English supporters, will the Government assist it in ensuring that supporters do not—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is far too wide of the question.

Patrick Cormack: Reverting to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb), what is the difference between "access" and "gateway"?

Beverley Hughes: I do not think that there is a particular difference in this context, except that providing access to a number of databases would, as I said, be determined by Parliament, so the extent to which the card became a gateway would be as limited or as extensive as Parliament determined.

Illegal Encampments

Mark Todd: What guidance he gives the police in addressing the problems posed by illegal encampments.

Hilary Benn: The Government recently published for consultation operational guidance for local authorities and police on managing unauthorised camping. The consultation period closes on 23 May and final guidance will be published later in the year. We have also announced that we will introduce new powers of eviction when parliamentary time allows.

Mark Todd: I welcome my hon. Friend's answer. Will he reflect, however, on the anger of communities such as Shardlow, Barrow on Trent, Foston, Swadlincote, Castle Donington, in a neighbouring constituency, and elsewhere in South Derbyshire, at the appalling nuisance of unauthorised encampments, and the lack of knowledge that police forces sometimes have of basic environmental protection law? Does he agree that one step might be to ask them to enforce the existing law with more rigour?

Hilary Benn: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. I recognise entirely the problem that he describes and, judging from the response in the Chamber, many hon. Members on both sides of the House have direct experience of it. There are already extensive powers, and it is important that they are used effectively. I commend to all hon. Members the consultation paper, because one of the points that it makes forcefully is the need to do precisely what my hon. Friend suggests. I urge hon. Members to look at that document and to let us have their views and comments, because we want to ensure that there are effective powers to deal with the problem and nuisance that my hon. Friend so starkly describes.

Julian Lewis: As I understand it, the Government are giving the police extra powers to evict illegal travellers' encampments provided that local authorities provide sites for the permanent establishment of travellers' encampments that can be properly designated and run. The trouble is that planning restrictions are not being eased to enable local authorities to build those sites. Will the Minister undertake to examine that weakness in the Government's proposals?

Hilary Benn: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, that is a matter for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, but I undertake to draw it to the attention of my colleagues. The benefit of the new powers that we propose to make available is that they would apply without the conditions that affect the section 61 powers that the police have under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. They would also cover, for example, industrial estates and road lay-bys, which are not covered by the current powers, and deal with the phenomenon which I am reliably informed is described as "hedge-hopping", whereby those who are removed from one field can then transfer their encampment to another one. That is what we seek to achieve, provided that the relevant local authority makes the provision that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

Margaret Moran: As the Minister will be aware, a few weeks ago several thousand of my constituents in Crawley, Round Green and Stopsley presented a petition to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary concerning the midsummer mayhem that they experienced as a result of an illegal traveller encampment that was chased around Luton and South Bedfordshire. Is he aware that there was a very different approach between the Luton police force and that of South Bedfordshire? As a result, residents of Stopsley—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the Minister reply.

Hilary Benn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for telling hon. Members about the different approaches of two forces. That reinforces the point that I made a moment ago—namely, that fairly extensive powers already exist, but we wish to add to them for the reasons that I outlined. It is helpful if forces co-operate, share information and work with local authorities to ensure that they use those powers in the interests of protecting the constituents of my hon. Friend and other hon. Members.

Street Crime

Bob Spink: What new measures he intends to bring forward to tackle street crime.

Bob Ainsworth: The street crime initiative is ongoing. It covers measures such as crime reduction, resettlement of offenders, faster court processes, education and summer activities, as well as police activity to deal with offenders. In the first six months, street crime fell by 16 per cent. in the areas covered, and £25 million of additional money has been allocated to support continued operations against it.

Bob Spink: On Friday night, I broke up a fight in which six youths were kicking to pulp another youth outside Benfleet police station in my constituency. There was not a policeman to be found. Does the Under-Secretary accept that the only way in which to tackle street crime, and get on top of crime generally, is to provide the 40,000 additional police officers that only the Conservatives will deliver?

Bob Ainsworth: All those that the Conservative party did not provide when it was in government for many years, presiding over a doubling of crime. The street crime initiative has been a phenomenal success and led to substantial reductions in robbery and snatch thefts in the areas covered. We intend to keep it up.

Middle East

Jack Straw: With permission Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on Iraq and on the middle east peace process.
	Let me start with the security situation in Iraq. Large-scale combat operations are over. The overwhelming majority of the country is under coalition control. The vast bulk of Saddam Hussein's forces have been defeated, dispersed or isolated, although minor pockets of resistance remain in Baghdad and some other towns.
	When the House rose for the Easter recess, the main challenge confronting coalition forces was civil disorder and looting in the immediate aftermath of the fall of the regime. It would have been a miracle had there not been such an outburst of anger, frustration and lawlessness in a country where the population had lived for so long in daily fear of torture, arbitrary arrest and summary execution.
	In the past two weeks, the looting and civil disorder has declined. In Baghdad, local police have offered their services, and joint patrols with coalition troops are under way. An effective curfew is in place. Baghdad's main hospitals are working and the United Nations Office of the Humanitarian Co-ordinator for Iraq reports that clean water is available in most parts of the city.
	More widely, schools and markets are reopening. Local hospitals are resuming normal service and field hospitals, including those supplied by Jordan and Saudi Arabia, are functioning well. Electricity and water supplies are reaching most parts of the country. Again, the UN Office of the Humanitarian Co-ordinator has said that it is about to declare the area to the south of Baghdad "permissive".
	In Basra—the centre of the area under British military control—United Kingdom forces are carrying out joint operations with local police and providing food and water through aid distribution points established on the outskirts of the city. A local judicial system is being established with our assistance and encouragement. Thanks to help from British engineers and local Red Cross workers, the three main power stations supplying Basra are now up and running, and the city's electricity and water supplies have been restored to pre-conflict levels. In some respects in the south facilities are already in better shape than before the military action commenced. The seaway into Umm Qasr is being dredged to take larger vessels and the grain store is open. The railway line from the town to Basra, which had not worked for many years, is now running, thanks to British military engineers, and plans are in hand to reopen the line all the way to Baghdad.

Alan Duncan: The railways are better than ours!

Hon Members: Hear, hear.

Jack Straw: I shall pass on to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport the all-party message about the important role that the British military might play in this country.
	In northern Iraq, essential supplies of wheat, oil and medical goods are being delivered unhindered. UNICEF reports that all schools in the north have reopened, and that the vast majority of people displaced by the conflict have now returned to their homes.
	In the coming weeks, coalition forces will increasingly share the burden for the delivery of essential services and aid with the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance, and with UN agencies and non-governmental organisations. When, just before Easter, I visited Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, I discussed ORHA's plans with its head, Jay Garner, and other colleagues of his based then in Kuwait. Mr. Garner moved into Baghdad with most of his colleagues just a week ago, and a number of other countries, aside from the US and the UK, are now making substantial contributions to that organisation. Australia, Denmark and Japan have already provided personnel. Others, including Spain, Romania, South Korea and Italy, are about to do so. For our part, we have so far provided 20 British staff, including one of Mr. Garner's three deputies, Major General Tim Cross, a serving officer with the British Army. We will be making further contributions to ORHA to help get Iraq back on its feet.
	As well as meeting humanitarian and other essential needs, and starting the process of physical reconstruction, a key objective of the coalition is to support a viable political process that allows the Iraqi people to create representative, democratic government for themselves. In Basra and the south-eastern sector, which we control, we began this process at a local level by sponsoring representative town meetings. Similar local and regional meetings, based, not least, on that model initiated by the British military, have been held elsewhere.
	On 15 April, the first meeting of national Iraqi representatives was held in Nasiriyah, with about 60 delegates present. That meeting was attended by a senior British diplomat, Edward Chaplin. A second such meeting—on a larger scale—is being held today in Baghdad, with an estimated 250 delegates in attendance, including a number of Shi'a clerics. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) and a senior Foreign Office official are attending that meeting. We will of course ensure that the House is informed of its outcome.
	We hope that the current process of consultation will culminate in a national conference of Iraqi representatives. This would, first, set up an Iraqi interim authority to take over progressively responsibility for the administration of Iraq. Secondly, it would create a constitutional framework to prepare the ground for the election of a democratic Government run by the Iraqi people themselves.
	As President Bush and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister have made clear, the United Nations will have a vital role in Iraq's reconstruction. Last week the UN Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 1476, which will extend the new arrangements for the UN's oil-for-food programme until 3 June.
	In the coming weeks, the Security Council will have to consider a range of other issues. Those will include the future of the sanctions regime and the subsequent management of Iraq's oil revenues.
	There is also the question of the future arrangements for verifying Iraq's disarmament of weapons of mass destruction. In his presentation to the Security Council last week, the head of UNMOVIC, Dr. Hans Blix, recognised that
	"in a situation that is still insecure . . . civilian international inspection can hardly operate,"
	and that
	"some of the premises upon which the Council established UNMOVIC and gave it far-reaching powers . . . have changed."
	He also accepted that coalition authorities would be as eager as UNMOVIC to find weapons of mass destruction.
	In the absence of the secure environment referred to by Dr. Blix, the task of locating this material inevitably falls to coalition forces. We are actively pursuing sites, documentation and individuals connected with Iraq's programmes. Both the UK and the US have deployed specialist personnel and will be sending more in the near future.
	But the investigations are unlikely to be quick. The inspection process itself will be painstaking and detailed. The testimony from scientists and documentation about WMD development and production programmes will be the key to determining the fate of the prohibited equipment, materials and munitions. But we cannot expect witnesses to come forward until they are fully confident that they can speak freely.
	Even so, I know that some hon. Members have expressed concerns about the justification for military action in the absence of discoveries of illegal Iraqi weapons. Let me make two observations in this connection. First, military action was taken on the basis set out very clearly in Security Council resolution 1441, namely that Iraq's
	"non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles"—
	posed a threat
	"to international peace and security."
	The evidence against Iraq was then—and remains—overwhelming. It was charted by UNMOVIC in damning detail in the 173 pages of its report, "Unresolved Disarmament Issues: Iraq's Proscribed Weapons Programmes", which was published in New York late on Friday 7 March, and which I published before the House in Command document 5785 the following Monday, 10 March. My second point is that Saddam had ample time to conceal his WMD programmes prior to the start of military operations. Indeed, his experience in concealment dates back to the early 1990s.
	Before I move on to the middle east peace process, let me say this. It is only 19 days since Baghdad was liberated, and barely two weeks since the end of serious fighting. In that time, civil disorder has subsided and—as we saw in the joyous Shi'a pilgrimage to Karbala last week—the Iraqi people have begun to savour the taste of freedom. Of course there are problems associated with this dramatic change for the Iraqi people after more than 20 years of coping with a brutal and vicious regime, but a new and representative Iraqi Government, run by the Iraqi people and for the Iraqi people, will help to guarantee this freedom for future generations. Despite all the immense challenges that lie ahead, I know one thing for certain: Iraq's future will be better than its past.
	Of course, the middle east will never look forward to a secure future as long as a settlement to the region's most intractable dispute apparently remains beyond reach. For the past months, Her Majesty's Government have therefore worked tirelessly to secure the publication and implementation of the road map—a document agreed by the Quartet group of the United States, Russia, the United Nations and the European Union that sets out a path to a peaceful settlement between the Israelis and the Palestinians. I greatly welcome the commitment from President Bush to devote as much effort to this cause as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has given to the search for peace in Northern Ireland.
	Later this week, the Palestinian Legislative Council will be asked to endorse the appointment of a new Cabinet for the Palestinian Authority. Under the leadership of Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas, one of the main architects of the Oslo accords, this Cabinet has, I believe, the courage and ability to take the tough measures necessary to clamp down on terrorism and to lead the Palestinians into a constructive dialogue with the Israelis and the international community. This, and action by the Israeli Government to ensure that the Israeli defence force acts strictly within international law, should bring to an end the spiral of killings that has claimed more than 3,000 lives on both sides over the past two and a half years.
	Once the Palestinian Legislative Council endorses Mahmoud Abbas's Cabinet, the road map will be published. Then, for the first time for a long time, we should be able to speak of a peace process in which the parties themselves are actively engaged. The road map charts a course to the outcome that the House and the entire world wish to see: a secure state of Israel alongside a viable, separate state of Palestine, consistent with UN Security Council resolutions and the principle of land for peace. We will maintain our very close dialogue with the United States to push this process forward, and we will do all that we can with them and our European partners to help with the implementation of the road map.
	With visionary leadership and courageous statesmanship from both sides, the outcomes that I have described for Israel and Palestine can, in our judgment, be achieved within the time scale set out in the road map—that is, by 2005. If that happens, it will not just bring an end to the misery of millions of Israelis and Palestinians who live every day under the shadow of indiscriminate violence; it will remove the single greatest source of resentment and mistrust that bedevils relations between the west and the Muslim world. I know and believe that both sides of the House will support the Government's efforts to secure this great prize.

Michael Ancram: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and for giving me advanced sight of it. The House will have shared my mixed feelings as we learned from Saturday's edition of The Times that we nearly lost the right hon. Gentleman as Foreign Secretary before the war began, and that our support apparently saved him. I suppose that every silver lining has a cloud.
	Although the war is over, our armed forces are still engaged in Iraq in the promotion of public order and security and in the process of initial reconstruction. With their courage, professionalism and dedication, they are once again doing us proud. The overarching priority now is to rebuild confidence within Iraq and in the wider region. I believe that the key elements are that, along with the maintenance of public order and security, basic public services and amenities are restored; that the elimination of weapons of mass destruction is achieved; that the interim administration and any system of government that emerges from it will be genuinely representative of Iraq as a whole, including women, and will not create disfranchised minorities on religious or ethnic lines; and that real progress can be made on the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians.
	Could the Foreign Secretary reassure the House on a number of points? The Prime Minister, in his press conference this morning, insisted that weapons of mass destruction would be found in due course. He had no doubt. The Foreign Secretary seemed to dilute that view in his statement. What is his position? Is it that weapons of mass destruction will be found or that they will not be found? Will he confirm that, if they are found, independent verification will be essential? The Prime Minister had no such doubts this morning. Does the Foreign Secretary share his certainty?
	Will any independent verification be carried out by the United Nations inspectors? If not, why not? Will the Foreign Secretary clarify what role the United Nations will play in the oil-for-food programme? Washington wants sanctions lifted and the oil-for-food programme phased out. France has proposed a temporary suspension of sanctions and a gradual phasing out of the oil-for-food programme. Russia wants the United Nations Secretary-General to run the entire programme until an internationally recognised Iraqi Government come into power, which, as we know, could take several years. What is the Government's view on that central question?
	In looking to the future shape of the Administration and Government of Iraq, are there any democratic outcomes that the Government would find unacceptable? If so, what are they? What discussions have there been in Iraq about possible forms of government that would underwrite power-sharing and avoid disfranchisement or secession?
	What practical steps are the Government taking to ensure that countries such as France do not seek belatedly to engage in the commercial exploitation of Iraq? Does the Foreign Secretary share my suspicion that their recent repositioning on sanctions may have more to do with economic advantage than with altruism?
	Is the right hon. Gentleman confident that members of Saddam Hussein's regime, wherever they may be hiding, will be returned to Iraq to face the legal consequences of the crimes that they perpetrated against the people of Iraq? Can he tell us yet where and under what law they will be tried?
	The confidence of the whole region will be massively strengthened by genuine progress in the middle east peace process towards the two-state solution. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that dialogue between the two sides, at whatever level, would be an important step forward, and does he join me in welcoming Ariel Sharon's reported invitation to Abu Mazen to meet him in Jerusalem for discussions? Will he give such dialogue all possible encouragement, especially if the publication of the road map is further delayed? Does he foresee any reasons why it might be further delayed?
	We have supported the Government in the removal of Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction because we believed it right and in our national interest to do so. Now, the challenge is to build confidence and stability across the region. That, too, we believe, is right and in our national interest, and so long as that remains the Government's objective and they pursue it with due competence, they will continue to have our support.

Jack Straw: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks, and I shall answer some of the specific questions that he asked. On the role of women in any new government whom we assist in creating, we are very strongly committed to ensuring that women play a proper role inside any government. [Interruption.] I hear some muttering from behind, and I should say that I am not in partisan mode. We are committed to ensuring that women play a full role in any government of Iraq, and with luck, they will do so in the Conservative party at some time in the future. We wish to see the full implementation of United Nations resolution 1325, passed unanimously by the Security Council, which calls for wider participation by women in Governments of all countries that are member states of the United Nations. The Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire, has already spoken today in Baghdad about the importance of ensuring that there is a proper role for women.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked me whether I am certain that WMD will be found. I am not certain where they are—such certainty seemed to be the implication of what he was saying—but I am absolutely certain that Iraq had illegal possessions of—[Hon. Members: "Had?"] Hang on a second. I am absolutely certain that Iraq had illegal possessions of weapons of mass destruction, and recently. Therefore, there is every reason why they ought to be found, and that is the position of the Government.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked about the oil-for-food resolutions. The oil-for-food programme is a United Nations programme that was rolled over by resolution 1472, and again last week by resolution 1476, until 3 June. It will continue as a United Nations programme until the Security Council makes decisions about the future of oil-for-food and of the sanctions regime.
	The right hon. Gentleman also asked whether there are any democratic outcomes that are unacceptable. Well, we cannot have it both ways. If we wish to see a democracy established in Iraq as elsewhere, we have to accept that in the end, such a democracy is one in which the people of Iraq—like the people of this country—have to make up their own minds about their own future. That is the essence of democracy. Of course, there are some outcomes—outcomes that would lead to a change in the territorial integrity of Iraq—that would be unacceptable.

Bernard Jenkin: Ah!

Jack Straw: Of course that is true, because that is a matter that affects international peace and security, in which the international community has a role. But within that, we have to establish strong and robust political institutions in Iraq, and to have some confidence and faith in the Iraqi people to run their own government—a confidence and faith in their ability that the dictator Saddam Hussein never had.

Mr. Speaker: Menzies Campbell.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Menzies Campbell: Perhaps I might take a moment, Mr. Speaker, to thank you and colleagues on both sides of the House for the messages of support that have meant a great deal to me and my family in recent weeks. However—to the business of the day.
	Can the Foreign Secretary give the House some illustration of what the Government envisage as a vital role for the United Nations? Does not a vital role involve more than merely acting in an advisory capacity, or being concerned with humanitarian relief? What progress has he made with his entirely sensible suggestion that there should be a United Nations-sponsored convention to consider the future of Iraq? In recognising Dr. Blix's reservations about civilian inspection in an insecure environment, does that mean that when security is established, there will be an opportunity for Dr. Blix and the inspectors to return? In the meantime, can we take it that they will be invited to provide independent verification if any suspect materials are discovered?
	Dr. Blix told the Security Council before the conflict that the inspectors could complete their task in some months. What is the Government's estimate?
	The appointment of Mahmoud Abbas is one of the most encouraging events in the middle east peace process for a long time. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that it would not have come about without the promise of the publication of the road map? Does not that make it vital to keep to the timetable in the road map, lest momentum be lost? Finally, will the Foreign Secretary take the opportunity to make sustained representations to the Israeli Government to suspend all new settlement activity, including the building of a so-called security fence on the west bank?

Jack Straw: May I first say how pleased I am to see the right hon. and learned Gentleman in his place and on such good form? I am sure that, in saying that, I reflect the sentiment of the whole House. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's wise contributions, which he has made over many years, have been greatly missed by us all.
	I was asked about the vital role for the UN to which President Bush and the Prime Minister committed themselves at Camp David and again at the Hillsborough summit a few weeks ago. There is an essential role for the UN to play—for example, in the suspension or lifting of sanctions; the future of the oil-for-food programme; the question of the title to Iraq's oil; working alongside the coalition and any putative Iraqi representative domestic institutions in building governance; and, more generally, supporting reconstruction. There is also the issue of weapons inspections.
	However, precisely how the UN's vital role turns out does not depend solely on the United Kingdom and the United States, the two key coalition partners, but on the degree to which we can secure active co-operation from our other partners in the Security Council. It is a matter of history that we were able to secure that co-operation in the run-up to resolution 1441, but after 8 November, we were unable to maintain it and, sadly, no second resolution was possible, leaving the international community divided.
	In the UN headquarters in New York and in capital cities, detailed discussions are now taking place about how to ensure that the UN is able to play a vital role, but to do so constructively in a way that is not disruptive of the coalition, nor gratuitously disruptive of the process towards democratisation in Iraq. I am as committed as anyone—and so is the Prime Minister—to the fullest possible role for the UN, but it requires work, activity and good will by others as well as ourselves.
	I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) for what he said about the middle east peace process. I should like to take this opportunity to respond to one of his questions to which I previously omitted to reply—whether I welcomed Prime Minister Sharon's offer to hold meetings with Prime Minister Abu Mazen as soon as the road map has been published. Of course I welcome that, as I welcome any positive steps by either side in the conflict to put the terrible and violent past behind them.
	The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) asked whether we are ready to call for the suspension of all new settlements. Yes, we have already done so, but I am happy to reinforce that point. We are also keen to see an end to the building of the fence, which is taking more land that belongs to the Palestinians into what amounts to Israeli territory.

Donald Anderson: The whole House will surely welcome the progress report made by my right hon. Friend in respect of both Iraq and the middle east peace process. Given the great scepticism among Arab opinion about the bona fides of the coalition, does he agree that the best means of persuading Arab opinion of our even-handedness is the manner in which we deal with Iraq and implement the road map?
	Is he confident that at the end of the process all the countries of the region, including Iran, will be ready to accept the existence of the state of Israel?

Jack Straw: I agree with my right hon. Friend's overall sentiment. Having been in a representative but significant part of the Arab world, in the Gulf and Saudi Arabia, two weeks ago, I have to say that sentiment towards coalition action is interestingly ambiguous. Certainly none of the predictions about massive and sustained protest in the Arab street came to pass. A great many people in the Arab street, as well as those in Arab Governments, have been only too glad—as we anticipated—to see the back of Saddam Hussein and of the instability that he brought to the region and the terror that he brought to his own people.
	The road map is critical, however. Time without number, I have made the point that, yes, Security Council resolutions such as 242, 338 and 1397 impose obligations on Israel: broadly, to recognise the 1967 borders, to withdraw from the settlements, to secure a resolution of the refugee issue, and so on. However, those resolutions also impose the clearest possible obligations both on the Palestinians to end terrorism and to co-operate with Israel, and on all the Arab and Islamic states to recognise the state of Israel and to accord it the same respect that any state in the world has the right to expect—its very existence should not be challenged on a daily basis. There cannot be peace in the middle east between Israel and the Palestinians unless all three sides recognise their obligations and responsibilities.

Peter Ainsworth: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, in advance of the coalition invasion, his Department and others, including the Prime Minister's office, were repeatedly warned that hugely important antiquities and works of art in Iraq were in danger of being looted? What response did he make to those warnings; and now that we know that more than 100,000 antiquities have disappeared, what is he doing to get them back?

Jack Straw: We were warned, and the coalition forces were, of course, aware of the great importance of the museum of Baghdad and its holdings to antiquity and to our sense of the origins of our own civilisation. It is, therefore, the most appalling tragedy that the museum was looted in that way. However, that happened because of the military situation in Baghdad at the time. Although I realise that the hon. Gentleman is not one of them, it is easy for people to say, from the safety and comfort of their armchairs, that the US military should have taken immediate action. However, the problem that the US military faced at that time and for some days afterwards was that, the moment they left their armoured personnel carriers or tanks, they were shot at and some of them were killed or injured. That made for a difficult environment, which was different from the one that obtained in Basra. Would that the situation had been different and that it had been possible to put a proper cordon around the museum.
	As regards the future, much work is being undertaken by the United States, the United Kingdom and other countries to help the Iraqis to rebuild their holdings. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport is taking a close personal interest in that. Tomorrow, the British Museum is holding a meeting about the whole situation to consider what more can be done.

Gerald Kaufman: Recollecting that the peace efforts of Shimon Peres and Ehud Barak were destroyed by deliberate acts of terrorism carried out by Palestinian terrorist groups, and taking into account the fact that those terrorist groups can be relied on to carry out such acts in order to destroy this peace process, will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that when such acts take place—as they will—the Prime Minister of Israel will not be allowed to use them as a pretext or a device to delay or disrupt the peace process, and that the Government will insist that the peace process be completed by the date set out in the road map? Furthermore, will my right hon. Friend tell the Israeli Government that, if they want to demonstrate their good faith in the process, the first thing they must do is end the virtual imprisonment of Yasser Arafat in his headquarters in Ramallah?

Jack Straw: My right hon. Friend is correct to say that the good offers that Prime Minister Barak made to the Palestinians were effectively sabotaged by escalating violence by rejectionist terrorist groups. All sides have a responsibility to act with restraint in this situation. Of course, that includes the Israeli Government; but in addition, it includes those countries in the region that have been sponsoring or financing rejectionist terrorist groups. One of those was Iraq, which has now been dealt with, but there are other countries to which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister referred in his press conference this morning. We seek dialogue and co-operation with Syria and Iran, for example, but we also expect to them to exert new restraint on those rejectionist terrorist organisations in so far as they have direct influence over them.

John Maples: May I suggest to the Foreign Secretary that, if the Palestinian-Israel problem is to be settled, we all know pretty much what the terms of that agreement and deal will be—they were discussed and so nearly agreed at Taba—but the difficulty will be to get both sides to accept that agreement? That will involve an awful lot of arm twisting, and I wonder whether I can bring him back to the role of the other states in the region because, in particular, Saudi Arabia and Egypt have a vital role to play. From his knowledge of the current state of the negotiations, does he believe that those countries are playing a positive role and that they meant what they said at the Arab League summit in Beirut this time last year, when they said that they would offer Israel recognition and peaceful, normal relations with its neighbours in exchange for the recognition and creation of a Palestinian state?

Jack Straw: I am in no doubt that Egypt and Saudi Arabia are fully committed to the processes set out in the road map, and I had conversations about that with Prince Saud, the Saudi Foreign Minister, when I was in Riyadh just two weeks ago. In addition, it is important for the House to note that the single most important factor that led to the change of heart by Chairman Arafat to approve Abu Mazen's Cabinet was pressure from President Mubarak of Egypt and, in particular, his dispatch of his head of intelligence, Omar Suleiman, who played a most constructive role in Ramallah itself to end the impasse and ensure that Chairman Arafat endorsed that Cabinet.

Ann Clwyd: My right hon. Friend will recall that, a few weeks ago, I asked that documents found in Iraq should be very carefully collected, but some very interesting documents have turned up. The point that I make today is about the story on the front page of The Daily Telegraph—it is the lead item—concerning Indict. It alleges that French security services were assisting Iraqi intelligence agents deliberately to threaten the lives of British subjects. We had two bomb threats on that day: one in Paris, with the message that everyone in the building would be dead by the end of the day and another in London, with the same message, and we had to clear our office in London. We made a full report to the French police. We made a full report to the British embassy in Paris, and we were told that the special branch followed it up, but we heard nothing further.
	What did the Foreign Office do, and what was the response? It is time we had a full inquiry into those alleged activities on both sides, and I ask my right hon. Friend to ensure that that takes place.

Jack Straw: I cannot give a detailed response to my hon. Friend just now; I will undertake to follow up the points that she has made in the greatest possible detail, reply to her and make a written statement to the House about the matter, and we shall take it from there.

Julian Lewis: Following on from that, is it not a fact that, usually when enemy capitals are captured, an intelligence objective sub-committee will have previously arranged for the incoming forces to secure such obvious intelligence targets as the foreign ministry headquarters and the intelligence organisation headquarters? Why was that not done in this case? Why was it left to The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Telegraph and their enterprising journalists to find out what our own intelligence people should have found out?

Jack Straw: The situation in Baghdad was not one in which every building could be secured. That is the simple truth of the matter. I have already given an answer to the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) about the reasons why the museum of Baghdad ended up being looted. Of course, the coalition recognises its responsibilities, among other things, for the collection of intelligence, and is doing so. We must also recognise, however, that in the aftermath of a military defeat of the kind that took place 19 days ago, a degree of disorder and lawlessness was likely, which others exploited.

Ken Purchase: I too welcome the statement on Iraq and the progress that is being made, particularly in reference to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary's words with regard to governance and democracy. Great patience will be needed on the part of the coalition to bring about the successful governance of Iraq. I share his view that democracy is perhaps the greatest force for progress that the world has ever seen. Regrettably, however, that ancient doctrine is not necessarily shared by those who are of a fundamentally religious turn of mind. In view of the fact that he was prepared to give assurances about the role of women in the governance of Iraq, can he give similar assurances that we will not see the rise and rise of religious fundamentalism and the clerics taking over the governance of Iraq, perhaps bringing about just as oppressive a regime as that which we have successfully dismantled?

Jack Straw: My point to my hon. Friend is that, in the end, that is something for the Iraqi people to decide. If they have strong representative institutions that are democratic—the essence of democracy is that people are able to change peacefully a Government with whom they disagree—that is for them to decide. I do not believe for a second that any future Government will remotely meet the terrible standards set by Saddam Hussein: quite the reverse. If my hon. Friend looks around elsewhere in the Islamic world—at Turkey, Indonesia and next door in Iran—he will see those peoples paying full respect to their religion, just as we do in this country and in this House, where we still have a Church by law established. He will also see, however, those countries—Turkey, Iran and Indonesia—trying to come to terms with principles of democracy and with post-agrarian society, and I believe that Iraq, too, can do that.

Paul Marsden: What steps are the Government taking to destroy safely the unexploded munitions littered across Iraq, which, since the end of the war, are believed to have killed some 80 civilians and wounded another 400, many of whom are children?

Jack Straw: Every step is being taken to deal with those munitions. It is in the interests of coalition forces as much as it is in the interests of local people to ensure that they are disposed of safely. It is a further indication of the utter irresponsibility of Saddam Hussein and his henchmen that he left those munitions in such dangerous places in the first instance.

Anne Campbell: What representations has my right hon. Friend made to the Israeli Government about two British subjects: Tom Hurndall, who was shot in the head and seriously injured by Israeli soldiers, and Ian Hook, a UN worker, who was shot and killed by the Israelis?

Jack Straw: I have personally made a number of representations in respect of the second gentleman to whom my hon. Friend refers, including to the previous Foreign Minister, Bibi Netanyahu. As to the first gentleman she mentioned, our concerns about what happened to him were raised by the permanent under-secretary at the Foreign Office in a conversation with his counterpart at the end of last week. I am happy to give her further details.

Douglas Hogg: May I take the right hon. Gentleman back to the questions asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) regarding the possible trial of members of the former Iraqi Administration? I am sure that he will agree that he has had ample time, together with the American Government, to reflect on that matter. Will he please tell us what is the likely mode and venue of trial? Will he also please tell us what steps he will take to ensure that the trials are fair? Lastly, will he give an assurance that those people will not be dropped into the legal black hole that is Guantanamo Bay?

Jack Straw: I cannot give the right hon. and learned Gentleman a precise, definite answer because these matters are still subject to discussion with the United States Government, and they will not be resolved until a functioning interim authority has been established. We want the Iraqi people, in the main, to take responsibility for ensuring justice in respect of former members of the regime. They had no effective justice system during the 24 years of Saddam Hussein's rule, but historically Iraq had a reasonably well functioning and fair judicial system. I held a discussion last week with British Ministers about how our Government could aid and assist in the creation of a new judicial system in Iraq, and I am happy to write to the right hon. and learned Gentleman about that.
	There is a question as to whether an international tribunal should be established to try the leaders of the regime. We have not ruled that out, but I am sceptical because of the vast costs of the international tribunals set up to deal with Yugoslavia and, even worse, Rwanda. The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not mention the International Criminal Court, but let me say that it does not have a direct role because its jurisdiction is only for events that took place after July last year.

David Winnick: Can my right hon. Friend explain why anyone here should not be absolutely delighted that a murderous tyranny has been destroyed, and why they should not congratulate those involved in the armed forces? As to the middle east conflict, does my right hon. Friend accept that there will need to be a great deal of pressure, not least from the United States, on Israel to give up the illegal occupation that dates from 1967 and the notorious settlements that are in defiance of international law?

Jack Straw: I share my hon. Friend's sentiments; it is for others to explain if their sentiments are different. On pressure on the Government of Israel, I have to say that from my direct conversations with President Bush I am quite clear about his commitment to push forward the road map and to engage in robust conversation with the Government of Israel. As I have said, there must be an equivalent response by the Palestinians and the Arab states if the progress charted in the road map is to produce a reality.

Crispin Blunt: To achieve a settlement by 2005, the Foreign Secretary has called for visionary leadership and courageous statesmanship that has probably not been seen in Israel and Palestine since the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin. He has already intimated that the British Government are open to the possibility of enforcing the road map through a chapter VII resolution of the United Nations under international law. What prospect is there of the United States at least admitting that possibility?

Jack Straw: I am sorry that I cannot, in that respect or any other, speak directly for the United States Government. However, I can repeat that they are completely committed to implementing the road map. At Hillsborough, President Bush did not have to say that he would devote to that the same energy as the Prime Minister has devoted to the Northern Ireland peace process, but he did say it, and it is an indication of the way in which he has gripped the issue and is putting his own reputation and great office on the line to ensure that, after so many decades of strife, we secure the prize of peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

Win Griffiths: To what extent has my right hon. Friend used his influence and friendship with the regime in Iran to try to persuade it to withdraw from Iraq the Iranian-based activists who are intent on establishing a new tyranny modelled on the ayatollahs' in Tehran, or does he expect the Americans to follow up their threats against the Iranian regime with action?

Jack Straw: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I have repeatedly made it clear that there are no plans or intentions to take any kind of military action against Iran: quite the reverse. I commend the constructive approach that the Iranian Government had taken even before military action was taken against Iraq, and we are grateful to them for the co-operation that has been achieved. We look for the Iranians to continue to play a constructive role in supporting the establishment of Government and political institutions, and to do so in a benign way.

Bob Spink: Would the right hon. Gentleman congratulate the Kurdish people on the help that they gave during the conflict, and would he take all possible steps to ensure that Turkey does not in any way interfere with their right to govern themselves within a Kurdish region under a single Iraqi democratic federal state?

Jack Straw: I am happy to do so. The Kurdish people were very courageous indeed in resisting Saddam Hussein's tyranny. Their current leaders are involved in the conference in Baghdad and we hope that they play a constructive role in Iraq's future. It is important that they, as well as countries in the surrounding area, recognise and respect Iraq's territorial integrity. If that happens, the stage is set for the stability of the whole region. If, however, there are challenges to Iraq's territorial integrity, we will have greater problems than anticipated.

Tam Dalyell: Does the Foreign Secretary recollect from his history that on orders from Washington in 1945 one of the first things that the American and British armies entering Berlin had to do was get hold of Nazi documents because of likely trials? Why have the answers on documents that have already been given this afternoon not been at all convincing? It is not difficult to seize documents and take them into custody, so why were they left for other people to go through?

Jack Straw: With respect to my hon. Friend, I have already answered that question. The world is far from perfect. If it had been possible to secure all those sites, that would have happened, but it was not possible any more I may say, although I was not born at the time, than it was possible in Berlin in 1945.

Angus Robertson: I welcome the Government's restated position in favour of independence for Palestine and secure borders for Israel, but did the Foreign Secretary on his tour of the middle east speak with servicemen and women deployed there about their widespread concerns about service pensions? What is he doing to maintain the morale of troops in the middle east, and those who have just returned, on that important question?

Jack Straw: I saw a number of British servicemen and women, and greatly admired their complete commitment to the cause for which they had been fighting, and for which some of them had given their lives. The issue of pensions for British servicemen and women is properly a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

Louise Ellman: Is the Foreign Secretary concerned about reports of sales of chemical precursors to Syria, given President Assad's practical support for groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, and their determination to ensure that there will not be any peace between Israelis and Palestinians?

Jack Straw: I am always concerned about such reports, and we look at them thoroughly. As I said earlier, while we seek active dialogue with Syria it is crucial that Syria end its support for and financing of rejectionist terrorist groups operating inside Israel and the occupied territories and, furthermore, that it recognise that if it wishes to be admitted fully to the international community it has to take that action and stop equivocating about its position on those terrorist groups.

Hugh Robertson: The Foreign Secretary will be aware of considerable speculation in the past fortnight that the French Government were involved in briefing the Iraqis in the run-up to the war about the American and EU plans. Indeed, they were involved before then in helping the Iraqi Government to breach sanctions. Is the Foreign Secretary aware of anything either in the Foreign Office or coming out of Baghdad that would support either accusation?

Jack Straw: I have seen no corroboration of those reports.

Jim Cunningham: Can my right hon. Friend say, first, whether or not relations between the coalition and Syria have improved as a result of the conflict; and secondly, can he reassure the public that Syria is not next on any hit list that may be around?

Jack Straw: The answer is that relations with Syria have changed. They have deepened, and there is now a more serious dialogue with Syria. Syria is not—to use the language that my hon. Friend uses—on any list. I have already made that clear, and so has my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Equally, Syria has responsibilities which we hope that it will meet.

Andrew Robathan: Further to the question of the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), I too was on the board of Indict that she set up for a couple of years. The documents that she has mentioned should be in the hands of the American and British Governments. Will the Foreign Secretary ensure that the Government get hold of the documents that The Daily Telegraph and other newspapers have, study them, comment on their authenticity and then make a statement on the motivation, for instance, of the French Government in threatening to impose a veto on any United Nations resolution, of any other Governments, and of any individuals mentioned in the documents who opposed the war so vociferously?

Jack Straw: I simply repeat the answer that I have already given my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley. To provide the sort of answer that I promised my hon. Friend, we shall have to get hold of the documents.

Linda Perham: As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary knows, I represent a large Jewish population in Redbridge. They are concerned, as I am, about the security and future of Israel. My right hon. Friend talked about visionary leadership and constructive dialogue in the process. Does he really think that as long as Mr. Arafat retains any influence or position that is likely to occur?

Jack Straw: I hope that my hon. Friend and her constituents—I know the area that she represents very well—will recognise just what movement has taken place among the Palestinians, and the decision by Chairman Arafat, under external pressure, to recognise Prime Minister Abbas's Cabinet, including the effective head of security, Mr. Dahlan, who was not being approved by Chairman Arafat. Those events represent a significant change by the Palestinian Authority as a whole towards an effective peace process. I also know—I say this to my hon. Friend and her constituents, many of whom have relatives and friends in Israel—that the best chance that we can have for providing a safe future for Israelis is to get the peace process going, to secure the implementation of a road map and to have a secure state of Israel alongside a viable state of Palestine.

James Paice: The Foreign Secretary rightly reiterated his determination and that of his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that the new structure of governance in Iraq should be as broad and wide as possible, and should have the support of the international world, and he referred to the United Nations. The right hon. Gentleman will be well aware that not everybody believes that that is the view of the American Government. It is thought by some that they are less concerned about the role of the UN.
	Are any other Governments represented at today's meeting? Were any others invited apart from the British and, obviously, the Americans? In other words, what role is being played already, or asked to be played, by the UN or individual Governments that have taken an interest in the Iraq situation, to help to form an interim Government?

Jack Straw: It was President Bush who used the phrase "vital role" for the United Nations. I am clear that he stands by that. I have already explained to the House precisely how that role turns out. That depends not only on the United States and the United Kingdom but on other partners in the Security Council, and the constructive approach that is shown by them.
	I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a direct answer as to whether other countries were directly represented at today's meeting in Baghdad. I can say, however, that Australia, Denmark and Japan have already provided personnel to the organisation that is headed up by Jay Garner, which is also running the Baghdad conference. Other countries, including Spain, Romania, South Korea and Italy, are about to do so.

George Foulkes: Does my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary agree that the priorities for the coalition forces in Iraq should be restoring and maintaining order, and helping with reconstruction and feeding the people, rather than searching every corner of the country for weapons of mass destruction? Will he urge some of our colleagues and the media to have patience? After all, my right hon. Friend has just a passing interest in making sure that the job is done thoroughly.

Jack Straw: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend's wise words.

James Gray: In answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) a moment ago, the Foreign Secretary said he was confident that Saddam Hussein had had weapons of mass destruction. Does he accept that those words are quite different from those that the Prime Minister used this morning, when he said that he was certain that our forces will find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? How confident is the Foreign Secretary that in the reasonably near future he will find, at the very least, concrete evidence of the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

Jack Straw: My answer is, as ever, entirely consistent with the words of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. The crucial point that we must all understand is that it is beyond peradventure that weapons of mass destruction have existed—biological and chemical weapons. They were well charted in the 173 pages of UNMOVIC's last inspection report dated 7 March this year.

Harry Barnes: Although the Iraqi people can be divided into Sunni, Shi'a, Kurds, fundamentalists and secularists, do they not have many common interests as doctors, electricians, construction workers, engineers and railway workers? What role will there be for a re-emerging trade union movement in the democratisation and reconstruction of Iraq?

Jack Straw: I applaud my hon. Friend's concern about that. As he knows, my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) is working closely with him and with others to encourage the establishment of one of the key political institutions in any democracy: a trade union movement.

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome

Alan Milburn: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on severe acute respiratory syndrome. SARS was first reported to the World Health Organisation by a number of countries in south-east Asia in mid-February this year, although subsequent information from the Chinese authorities suggests that it probably started to emerge in southern China during November last year. It presented initially as an unknown illness causing fever and severe chest symptoms, including pneumonia. Since then, laboratories around the world, including those in the United Kingdom, have been working to pinpoint the precise cause of this serious new illness. At this stage there is neither a test to diagnose SARS, nor an antidote to treat it.
	SARS has spread to 26 countries, but it has been concentrated in a handful of areas, with major outbreaks in Hong Kong, Hanoi, Beijing and other parts of China, Singapore, and Toronto in Canada. According to the most up-to-date information, which I received from the WHO this morning, there have been 4,836 probable cases of SARS worldwide and 293 deaths.
	There are, of course, understandable public concerns about the impact that SARS might have in the United Kingdom. I can confirm to the House that in this country to date there have been just six probable cases of SARS. The last reported case was admitted to hospital on 10 April. All the patients involved were quickly identified and have been successfully looked after by the NHS. All have now returned home and are well. The chief medical officer, Professor Sir Liam Donaldson, has advised that at present SARS poses a low risk for people in this country, so, serious though SARS is, it is important to keep it in perspective.
	Our response has been to take a precautionary but proportionate approach. The handling of SARS in this country has been informed, as it must continue to be, by the best scientific and medical advice. In particular, the chief medical officer and the new Health Protection Agency, in advising Ministers and the health service, have been working extremely closely with the World Health Organisation, which has the global responsibility for dealing with the disease. Throughout, we have followed WHO advice to the letter.
	It might help the House if I set out the action that has been taken to date and the further action that we now propose.
	First, we have provided early, accurate information to both the public and the health service. The CMO contacted all doctors on 14 March and subsequently on 7 April with detailed information on the symptoms and signs of SARS, and what to do if they encountered a possible case. Up-to-date information on SARS is also available to the public on the WHO, HPA and Department of Health websites, as well as through the NHS Direct telephone helpline, which many members of the public have contacted.
	Secondly, we have put in place high-quality public health surveillance to enable the disease to be tracked closely. In early March, the Health Protection Agency set up a system for reporting suspect and probable cases. Thirdly, the chief medical officer issued advice to people travelling abroad on 2 April and, subsequently, on 23 April in line with WHO recommendations. He strongly advised against travel to specific SARS-affected areas. That remains his very strong advice.
	Fourthly, the WHO has advised that passengers should be screened on departure from the countries affected, and as a further precaution, in line with that WHO guidance, information has been distributed to the main airports in this country giving advice to returning travellers on SARS.
	Fifthly, we have laid down, in line with WHO advice, specific requirements through guidance issued by the CMO on 14 March and 7 April on the management of patients within NHS hospitals to reduce the risks of cross-infection.
	Sixthly, and perhaps most importantly for the long term, we have put our country's considerable scientific expertise to work in helping to identify a causative organism for SARS. The HPA central laboratory in Colindale was a key part of the international collaboration that led to the identification of the likely cause. It is also at the leading edge of work to discover an accurate diagnostic test.
	Over the past few weeks, we have been able to draw on the UK's strength in public health and infectious disease control to deal with the threats posed by SARS. I must stress, however, that this is an evolving situation. We are keeping our plans and policies constantly under review, learning lessons where they need to be learned, building on good ideas wherever they are to be found and, especially, tracking the disease very closely in collaboration with our counterparts in other countries throughout the world. For example, this week we sent an expert from the HPA to Canada to assist, but at the same time to learn as much as possible from the unfortunate events in Toronto so that we can build the lessons learned there into our own plans here.
	So far, the approach taken on dealing with SARS in this country has proven effective. There is, however, no room for complacency. My clinical and scientific advisers have stressed that we need to retain flexibility in how we respond, not least because we do not yet fully understand how SARS spreads. We do know that most of the cases have been transmitted between people who were in close contact with one another—for example between health care workers and SARS patients—rather than through normal social contact among the wider population. However, we cannot at this stage reliably predict whether the SARS virus will maintain its current pattern of attack, change in infectivity or find new routes of transmission. That is why it is so important to strike a balance on how we respond to it.
	Some have asked why we do not adopt a policy of screening all entrants to the United Kingdom from countries that have had cases of SARS. The problem is that there is no such test. Screening involves asking people a series of questions about their health to identify any signs or suspicious symptoms. That is being done, according to WHO advice, at airports in the areas most affected.
	I am advised, however, that the early signs and symptoms of SARS occur commonly in the general population and are associated with a cough, cold or minor viral infection. Air travel, with its propensity to induce dry throats and coughs, is also a potential source of a large number of false leads, so trying to identify a genuine case of SARS is, as the CMO has put it, like looking for a needle in a haystack. With 4 million British and other visitors travelling between this country and the most affected areas each year, quarantining all those with such non-specific symptoms would be simply impractical. Indeed, I have been advised by our scientific experts that none of the six probable cases of SARS so far identified in this country would have been prevented or detected by screening at points of exit or entry, and still less on aircraft themselves. Instead, each case was picked up because of the patient's awareness of SARS and, of course, because of the high level of awareness among NHS staff.
	Fortunately, the evidence so far is that people transit SARS only once they have symptoms of the disease, and not before. With a disease incubation period of up to 10 days, successful identification and treatment of SARS sufferers has so far been achieved by concentrating public health expertise on people who have returned to this country and developed the disease in the succeeding days. However, this is a changing situation globally and if our experts advise changes to our approach, we will not hesitate to introduce new measures.
	Others have asked why we do not make SARS a notifiable disease. In this early and important stage of the SARS outbreak it is vital that we find out about all cases of the disease through rapid notification of cases rather than through the slow and bureaucratic processes associated with the notifiable disease regime. Unfortunately, that regime has become associated with significant under-reporting of disease. In any case, it is extraordinarily unusual for a person in this country suffering from an infectious disease to refuse treatment, reject advice and persuasion and necessitate calling the police compulsorily to detain them. We do not foresee that that power will be necessary in detaining people who fall ill with SARS at this stage.
	For the benefit of the House, however, I should mention that the Public Health (Aircraft) Regulations 1979 do provide the power to detain for examination any person leaving an aircraft where there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that they are suffering from or have been exposed to infection. The Public Health (Ships) Regulations 1979 contain a similar provision. I can tell the House that should the CMO advise me that wider powers have become necessary, SARS will be made notifiable. I am advised that, if necessary, we could make it so within 48 hours.
	We remain vigilant to the threat posed by SARS to public health in our country, so I can also tell the House today that I am taking further action following advice from the CMO. First, following emerging evidence from the main affected areas that SARS spreads through poor cross-infection control measures, all chief executives of NHS organisations are being reminded to ensure that rigorous controls are in place when treating a patient with possible SARS. That communication will also include an instruction to defer the start date of appointments of any foreign recruits to the NHS from SARS-affected areas.
	Secondly, I am taking steps to check that the exit screening from ports of departure is indeed robust. The UK is this week sending observers to those areas to ensure that passengers are being screened in line with WHO guidance. Where we have doubts that that is the case, we will consider screening passengers on specific flights on entry to Britain, including asking them to make a signed declaration that they have not been in close contact with SARS cases and do not have symptoms themselves.
	Thirdly, I intend with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to ask airlines returning passengers from SARS-affected areas to distribute information along with boarding cards. We also intend to discuss with the airlines other means of informing passengers about SARS on all long-haul flights from affected areas.
	Fourthly, I remind all airlines of their obligations to provide a declaration of health when a plane arrives in this country.
	Fifthly, next month at the World Health Assembly in Geneva, I will meet other Health Ministers to discuss whether any further measures above and beyond those already taken could be put in place at a European or international level.
	The whole House will want to pay tribute to staff in the NHS for their prompt, effective and successful action in responding to SARS. The best advice that I have is that the UK, alongside many other countries that have experienced a very low incidence of SARS to date, may see further cases over the months ahead. Given the importance and ease of global travel, we cannot isolate ourselves from the rest of the world. Given the complexity of detection, the test of success of our disease control policy rests on keeping to an absolute minimum the spread of the disease and successfully treating those affected.
	To date, the NHS has met that challenge because of the precautionary but proportionate approach that has been taken. We will continue to be vigilant, we will take whatever means are necessary to safeguard the public health of our people and we will continue working with the international community to tackle and, in time, defeat this serious new disease.

Liam Fox: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his statement and I thank him for making it available to the Opposition in advance.
	He is absolutely right in the main thrust of his comments about the present situation in the United Kingdom. We are fortunate, especially given the amount of passenger traffic coming into the United Kingdom, that we have not had more cases of SARS, as has happened in Hong Kong and China. The staff who have looked after the cases in this country are to be congratulated on that. The question is, however, whether we are doing all that we can to keep it that way.
	I am sure that the Secretary of State would be the first to agree that reports that the worst is over might lead to complacency, which would be highly regrettable. The outbreak in China is still gathering pace and is certainly not contained. If we look at the measures that have been taken in Asia over the past few days, we see that Taiwan has imposed a two-week ban on the entry of visitors from badly affected areas after the island announced its first SARS death on Saturday, that South Korea and the Philippines are taking new measures, and that in Singapore, although cases are declining with the imposition of stringent measures, including thermal imaging of air passengers, the quarantine regulations are being strictly enforced. To those who say that those Governments are going over the top, I point out that the director general of the WHO said this morning that such measures are not over the top, but prudent and necessary.
	The Secretary of State said that we have had just six probable cases in the UK. Are any suspected or probable cases being investigated at the present time? If so, how many?
	The issue on which I have the greatest disagreement with the Secretary of State is that of the notifiability of the disease. He says that it is extraordinarily unusual for a person in this country to reject advice and persuasion and to require detention. That is, of course, correct, but his approach is based on the presumption that somebody who is unwell with a high fever will act rationally. He says that if the situation gets worse, the Government will make it a notifiable disease, but, by his argument, they will do so only if the processes that have already been put in place have failed. The 1979 regulations that he mentions are inadequate, because they allow only for individuals to be detained for examination: they do not require someone to be quarantined and treated. Why are the Government denying the protection that the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 was introduced to provide? It is pointless to say that if the situation gets worse we will use the powers that we already have, as we should be using them to ensure that it does not arise in the first place.
	I welcome what the Secretary of State said about increased information for passengers—that should have been done long before now—but I wonder whether the checks that are supposedly taking place at airports of departure are really taking place. I can say from my own experience that when I recently passed through Singapore as a passenger I was not given proper information about what would be happening in relation to SARS.
	May I ask the Secretary of State about one or two of the measures that he proposes to introduce? He says that he will defer the start date for those coming into the United Kingdom to work in the NHS. For how long will he do so, and how will that be determined? Will that measure be kept in place until the entire SARS outbreak is under control? He says that if we send observers to airports of departure and they see that checks are not being made, he will ask for a declaration from passengers that they have not been in contact with SARS and do not have the symptoms of SARS. How will people who have been in Hong Kong or Singapore know whether they have been in contact with someone who has had SARS? That makes such a declaration utterly meaningless.
	I am sure that the Secretary of State's officials looked at all the tests that could be of assistance, given that he said that we may find that passengers are not being properly screened before arriving back in the United Kingdom. For example, what advice has he received from his officials about using an actin serum screening test, which was originally developed as a screening test for blood transfusion, to act as an early marker for infection of donated blood?
	It is used widely in Belgium and Germany. Someone who contracts a virus has an increased rate of apoptosis—more cell death—which produces actin fragments in the blood stream. Although it is non-specific, it becomes positive during the incubation period. Will the Secretary of State and his scientific advisers re-examine the experience of the use of the test and its possible application in the case of the failure of policies in airports to which he referred? We should use everything at our disposal to maximise public safety.
	The judgment is not whether all that needs to be done but whether all that can be done is being done. The last thing we want is an increase in the number of cases when we could have taken action to prevent that.

Alan Milburn: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments and questions. He said that we were fortunate not to have more cases in this country. I believe that it is a not question of good fortune but of good policy, good judgment and, most important, the action of the NHS and our public health services in this country. We are extremely fortunate to have one of the best public health systems in the world. The hon. Gentleman is aware of that and the measures that have been taken in the past few years to strengthen that system, most notably the creation of the Health Protection Agency. Steps have also been taken to strengthen public health powers locally through primary care trusts and regionally through the appointment of directors of public health.
	The hon. Gentleman asserted that the spread of SARS was gathering pace. He should be cautious. Before I came to the House, I heard the latest advice from the WHO. It said that although there were major anxieties about China, it was pleased with progress in other countries, notably Singapore and Vietnam. It is important to maintain a sense of perspective and proportion. Otherwise, we simply will not get the policy right. The hon. Gentleman and I want to get it right.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the number of suspected cases as distinct from probable cases. The WHO has advised that we should try to identify the numbers of suspected cases and probable cases. In the latter, the balance of probability is in favour of the presence of a SARS infection. At this time of year in the part of south-east Asia that we are considering, there is a high incidence of flu-like illnesses alongside the new and emerging infection of SARS. It is therefore unsurprising that some people who return from those countries report symptoms that could be a cough, a cold, flu or, in the worst case, SARS. To date, about 50 suspected cases have been investigated and dismissed. The number of definite probable cases remains six.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned notifiability and considered whether the powers under the 1979 aircraft and ship regulations give us powers that he claimed that we did not have. Our lawyers advise me that we have precisely the powers that we need both to take people off a plane and ensure their hospitalisation.
	I have taken clinical and scientific advice about the start date for new staff. We are proposing a 14-day breathing period to the NHS. Again, that is a precautionary approach given that the incubation period for SARS appears to be two to seven days or perhaps 10 days.
	The hon. Gentleman asked whether the declaration from passengers would mean anything if we took that route. He will find on examination that that is being done in other countries. I am not sure whether it is done in the United States but, for example, Air France has adopted such a policy. It is important to get some indication in the absence of any screening test.The hon. Gentleman knows the science as well as I do. There is currently no diagnostic test.
	There is no blood or urine test to detect whether a person has SARS. The only screening that can be undertaken is to ask people some questions, and that is precisely what we propose to do.
	I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman, who has been droning on on the radio and on television over the past few days, although thankfully he kept his remarks to a minimum today, would welcome the measures that we are taking because they are precisely in line with the precautionary but proportionate approach that is necessary.
	The proof of the pudding will be in the eating, but what the hon. Gentleman cannot get away from is that, despite the many visitors that we have each and every week from those areas that have been affected by this appalling new SARS virus, the cases that have presented, precisely because of the precautionary and proportionate approach that has been put in place, number just six. That is not a ground for complacency, but it is the foundation on which we seek to build, and it is important that we do so on the basis of the best scientific and clinical advice and avoid the situation that we have seen in previous public health scares, including those under his Administration, where it is politicians who decide the course of clinical and scientific policy.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: The Secretary of State is sensible to make it clear to the population that there is a problem but that it should be kept in proportion, and both his Department and, in particular, the chief medical officer are to be congratulated on the sensible advice that they have given. However, will my right hon. Friend keep reminding those who are most at risk—primary care and emergency workers and those in A and E departments—that they must continue to be vigilant? It would be particularly sad if they were to relax their vigilance, even for a short time, because they believed that the problem had been dealt with. Will he offer to areas such as Hong Kong and Singapore, which have a high standard of public health, any possible support that can be given by the NHS and its specialised services?

Alan Milburn: I very much agree with my hon. Friend, and I echo the tribute that my hon. Friend paid to the chief medical officer, Professor Sir Liam Donaldson, who throughout has played an important and leading role in handling the SARS problem.
	My hon. Friend is also right about the need for vigilance. We have distributed two alert notices to doctors in the NHS already, of which I think she is aware. We have also provided further detailed guidance through the web so that doctors can access information quickly and easily.
	I also agree with my hon. Friend's point about our international responsibilities. Our predominant responsibility is to serve this country and to ensure that we protect its public health, but we also have some wider international community obligations, particularly in countries that have been more adversely affected. As I said, experts from the HPA will travel to Canada this week and we will also send HPA experts to other countries that have been adversely affected.

Evan Harris: I, too, welcome the statement and the advance sight that we had of it. We share the concern of the House about the potential impact of the epidemic, not only on Britain's public health and on the well-being of world economies, but particularly on populations in developing countries that have neither the hospitals nor the public health structures adequately to treat the infection or to contain its spread. In that respect, reports of cases in India now are extremely worrying.
	Liberal Democrats believe, as I think does the Minister, that in public health matters it is important to take advice from professionals and from the science base, which is now global. But is it not also incumbent on Ministers, when formulating policy to tackle an epidemic such as this to set out the detail of the advice and the reasons why those decisions have been taken?
	For example, with regard to the MMR vaccine, the right hon. Gentleman will know that Liberal Democrats have no criticism of Ministers' decisions, nor of the way in which they explained precisely why they took such an approach, but does he understand why it is difficult for those of us who broadly support the Government's approach to understand why Ministers do not take the opportunity now to require SARS to be notified in order to give environmental health departments and hospital authorities reserve powers to insist on compliance with public health authorities? He needs to explain why that is not happening.
	The Minister with responsibility for public health has merely cited the chief medical officer's advice, without setting out the evidence and reasons for it. Given the potential seriousness of a UK outbreak, does the Secretary of State accept that claiming that notification would be too bureaucratic is not a satisfactory reason for not making the disease notifiable and providing those powers? Is it not the case that the so-called bureaucratic system of reporting need not replace the current system? If the Secretary of State believes that the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 is unwieldy, does he not agree that it is regrettable that successive Governments have not followed the advice of the chief medical officers, given in 1988 and more recently, to update that legislation?
	On airport screening, does the Secretary of State accept that, while World Health Organisation guidance recommends screening at the airport of departure, it does not advise against screening at the airport of arrival? Would it not be appropriate to use our immigration and entry system to provide the information needed and, possibly, to provide temperature screening? Will he also explain what advice he has had from the chief medical officer on asking passengers to sign forms when they might not even have the language skills to do so? No clinician would take such an approach, as such action would require a consultation.
	Does the Secretary of State agree that the isolation of asymptomatic people—even if they have passed through Singapore, as the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) has done—is, as the CMO advises, unnecessary? It could be counter-productive, as it could lead to unjustified discrimination and stigma, and might deter people with symptoms from coming forward. This problem is going to be with us for months, at best, and probably for years. The worst-case scenario is that it could affect the world for decades. The House must revisit the problem, and I hope that the Secretary of State will take the opportunity of forthcoming health legislation to provide the framework to update our public health legislation in the way that has been recommended serially by chief medical officers over the last 14 years.

Alan Milburn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I think that isolating the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) would be rather a good policy. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) must have written his speech—I know that it is only hand scribbled, but for him that is progress—before having read my statement, because I have tried to explain precisely the reasons for our decisions on the notification of SARS. We keep an open mind on that matter, however, and if I get the advice from the CMO to change that, I will.
	The hon. Gentleman made two important points. First, on the modernisation of public health legislation, the chief medical officer made recommendations to us about modernising the notifiable disease framework within a broader context, and I have some sympathy for them. We shall obviously keep that issue under review. The second point that the hon. Gentleman made, which is extremely important in dealing with these issues, is that while our action must be proportionate, it must also be based on the best scientific and clinical advice that we can get. There are good reasons for that. Anyone who remembers the outbreaks of bovine spongiform encephalopathy and variant CJD will know how important it is for Ministers not to give false assurances from the Dispatch Box, but to rely in as open and transparent a way as possible on the best scientific and clinical advice that we can get, precisely so that we can take a precautionary and proportionate approach.

Howard Stoate: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend and the chief medical officer on the measured and sensible way in which they are handling this situation? It is very reassuring for everyone in the country. I also thank my right hon. Friend for his assurance that he is to send observers to other parts of the world to ensure that, as far as possible, people are screened before they get on to aeroplanes. Clearly, the most effective way of controlling this outbreak is to ensure that people who are suspected of having the disease are prevented from travelling before they can spread it any further.
	Will my right hon. Friend comment on recent reports that China has severely under-reported the number of cases there? There has certainly been a big stir in the media about that. Is he now confident that the Chinese Government have a policy and measures in place accurately to report the number of cases, so that we can be sure that we are getting the full facts?

Alan Milburn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. So far as observers are concerned, we have been in contact with the various British embassies in the affected countries about the situation. As I said in my statement, we shall be sending observers during the course of this week, particularly to the worst-affected areas, to double-check that the procedures that those countries say are in place are properly in place and that they comply with WHO guidance.
	As for the under-reporting of the number of SARS cases in China, we rely not only on our excellent embassy staff in Beijing, Hong Kong and other parts of China that are affected, but on the guidance and expertise of the WHO. If the WHO is satisfied that the reporting in China is now accurate, we can also be satisfied that that is so.

John Wilkinson: Those of us with constituencies in boroughs containing major ports of entry into the United Kingdom will not be wholly reassured by the Secretary of State's statement. Will he institute right away a proper screening of inbound passengers from areas that are already seriously affected by the disease? Is it not better to be over-cautious than under-cautious, especially in view of the great risk of further spread of the disease in environments such as the London tube system, where as everyone knows there is close contact between individuals? What measures are airlines taking to protect air crew, especially flight attendants?

Alan Milburn: The hon. Gentleman asks me to do the impossible and to come up with a form of screening that can detect the virus. We do not have the technology or the science to enable us to do that.

John Wilkinson: Temperature screening.

Alan Milburn: Temperature screening does not give us an indication either. The virus, particularly in its early presentation, shares many symptoms with coughs, colds and other viral infections. There is not a simple test. If there were, we would put it in place, as would Governments throughout the world. I am sure that the WHO would quickly advise us to do so. The only screening that we can do is to try to ascertain from passengers coming from SARS-affected areas whether they have been in contact with the disease. I realise that that is far from perfect, but the hon. Gentleman must understand that this is a new and emerging infection, that we are trying to learn as we go, and that the best scientific experts in this country and throughout the world are being deployed on that task.
	The hon. Gentleman said that he was neither satisfied nor reassured by my statement. I accept that he has a view about that. However, if he is not prepared to believe me, I hope that he will believe some of the leading scientific and clinical experts in this country. Professor Roy Anderson, who is a leading epidemiologist from Imperial college in London, was interviewed by John Humphrys on the "Today" programme on Saturday. John Humphrys asked:
	"Professor Anderson, are we sufficiently on top of this one do you think?"
	Professor Anderson replied:
	"I think so, yes. I think the sort of doom and gloom predictions have been rather exaggerated. This is not a highly transmissible infection. It's been effectively contained in most of the developed countries in the world with very limited number of cases, Britain being a good example".

Jon Trickett: I feel reassured by the Secretary of State's statement, and I have absolute confidence that a properly funded national health service with an effective public health infrastructure is the best way to deal with this problem. I want to refer to an issue that was raised by one of my constituents on Thursday last. She is a parent escort for nine special needs children. She accompanies them back and forth to school, and one of them has just returned from a SARS-affected area. My right hon. Friend can understand the concern of other parents in the school or on the bus each morning. The local education authority was unable to give effective advice, except to monitor the progress of the child who had come back from the far east. What information does my right hon. Friend have about the level of infectivity prior to the display of symptoms? Can he reassure the House that there is proper liaison at local level between the health service and LEAs and other public bodies?

Alan Milburn: Separately but in tandem with the advice that the chief medical officer has distributed to the national health service at local level, the Department for Education and Skills has also distributed information to LEAs through its channels. If it is helpful to my hon. Friend, I shall get a copy of that advice sent to him.
	Fortunately, to the best of our knowledge, at this moment in time at least, people with SARS are not infectious until the symptoms appear. People with flu are highly infectious during the period leading up to the appearance of symptoms, but this disease appears on the face of it to be different. That should give us ground for optimism.
	My final point is a response to my hon. Friend's first. A situation such as this clearly reveals the considerable strengths of a single national health service for our country, which are integrated provision and the integration of public health services at local, regional and national levels. That is why we on this side of the House, at least, intend to maintain a national health service.

Patrick McLoughlin: Can the Secretary of State assure us that the advice given by the chief medical officer about areas that people should not visit is reflected in that given by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office?

Alan Milburn: Yes it is, as far as I know.

Tam Dalyell: If I may be forgiven a constituency question, the Secretary of State may or may not know that after Glasgow and Edinburgh, Toronto is the third most populous Scottish city in the world. Many of my constituents go to and fro between Scotland and Toronto, particularly when taking their holidays. The big issue is whether they should cancel, or indeed in some cases book, trips to see their kin and loved ones in Toronto in July, August, September or October. What advice should we give to them?

Alan Milburn: I am extremely reluctant to get involved in Scottish matters in general and Scottish holiday matters in particular. The best advice to which I can refer my hon. Friend is that given by the chief medical officer, and if it will help him, I will make sure that he gets a copy of it.

Andrew Murrison: Officials within the Secretary of State's Department have said that it is bureaucracy that is preventing this disease from being notifiable; in fact, the problem is under-reporting and under-notification through current legislation. Does he agree that his officials' comments have further undermined professionals' confidence in the reporting and notification system, and that those comments have not helped during the current outbreak? If he genuinely believes that the level of bureaucracy is at fault and that it is the reason why notification reporting has not been used for SARS, how does he intend to remove or to improve it?

Alan Milburn: As far as under-reporting is concerned, the fault lines in the official notification system have been a cause for some concern not only for people in my Department but for public health professionals. As the hon. Gentleman must be aware, under-reporting has got progressively worse, rather than better, over many years. However, he will also know from the variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease episode that other systems of reporting can be at least as effective—they are often more effective—as the official disease notification system. Indeed, to the best of our knowledge, at least, vCJD is almost 100 per cent. successfully reported. All of the cases that are identified are properly reported.
	The hon. Gentleman will share my desire—particularly in the early phase of what is a serious outbreak of this disease—that all cases be reported as quickly as possible with the minimum of bureaucracy, and that is what is happening. Cases are being reported directly to the chief medical officer and also to the new Health Protection Agency, rather than going through the form-filling exercise of which the hon. Gentleman is doubtless painfully aware.

Geraint Davies: Given that the disease is much more well established in China, what is known about its profile in the later stages of its evolution in China in terms of spread, growth, transmission and mutation? Indeed, what is known about the actions that the Chinese are taking to combat the later stages of its evolution? Would it not be a good idea to take such actions in a pre-emptive way as a precautionary measure?

Alan Milburn: As far as action in China is concerned, I understand that the Chinese Government are taking the matter and the accurate reporting of cases extremely seriously. Without accurate epidemiology, this or any other country will simply not be able to deal with the problems.
	We know that the worst cases of the spread of SARS—including, tragically, not only those in China but in Toronto—have occurred where there have been inadequate cross-infection control procedures, particularly in hospitals.
	We know from information from the Canadian authorities and through the World Health Organisation that, because several cases in Toronto hospitals were not spotted quickly, the isolated nursing procedures now recommended by the WHO were not put in place, leading to the fairly rapid spread of SARS. Many people adversely affected have been in close contact with SARS sufferers, so they tend to be close members of the family or, sadly, health care workers who have had to treat SARS patients. We know that much, and, because we know it, we can act appropriately and proportionately. That is why we are providing the advice and adopting the approach that we are.

Peter Luff: In his statement today, the Secretary of State was dismissive of the notifiable disease regime, effectively ruling it out as an effective tool in the battle to secure public health. If it is really as bad as that, what does he intend to do to reform it?

Alan Milburn: The hon. Gentleman was present during my statement and he knows full well that I did not say that. I said that if I received advice from the chief medical officer that further powers were necessary, on top of those already available in legislation through the 1979 regulations, we would not hesitate to take them. However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that it is important to take decisions on the basis of the best clinical and scientific advice, which is what we will continue to do. The fact that we have done so to date is one of the reasons why we have so few SARS cases in this country so far, and we shall continue to adopt the same approach in the weeks and months to come.

George Foulkes: Should we not put SARS more into perspective, as I am probably in greater danger of catching malaria? Should we not be more worried about the three children in hospital in Scotland with E. coli? Does not the panic caused by outrageous statements made in the media by Tory and Liberal spokesmen—I am glad that they were a little more responsible today—create tremendous problems? We should tell people that of course it is safe to go to Toronto. If we continue with this panic, not only transportation, but our economies will be adversely affected. If that happens, many more young children in the developing world will die of malnutrition as a result, which is something that we should really be worried about.

Alan Milburn: I think that it is right to take the SARS outbreak seriously, but I also think that it is important to keep it in perspective and in proportion. I read with interest in one of the weekend papers an article by Dr. Robert Baker, who is a specialist in infectious diseases at King's College hospital in London. He reminded us that in the course of a day, 3,000 children die of malaria worldwide; that nearly 3 million more people will have died of tuberculosis by the end of 2003; that 40 million people have died from AIDS; and that in the USA, ordinary influenza kills between 20,000 and 30,000 people each and every year. There are also several thousand such deaths in this country alone. However, that is not to downplay in any way the significance of a new and serious illness.
	My right hon. Friend is right that we have to keep a sense of proportion about SARS. I simply refer him to what Dr. Vivienne Nathanson, head of science at the British Medical Association, said about the problem:
	"It is extremely important that the public does not panic over Sars. The Department of Health, the Health Protection Agency and the World Health Organisation are taking all appropriate steps."

Pete Wishart: What particular measures has the Secretary of State taken to ensure that SARS does not spread to the nations and the regions of the United Kingdom? Given the current purdah in the Scottish Parliament, what discussions has he had with representative bodies in Scotland to ensure that the disease does not spread there?

Alan Milburn: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the chief medical officer in England has discussions, through the Health Protection Agency and the usual channels, with chief medical officers in the other countries of the UK. On public health issues, we try to maintain as far as possible a UK-wide response, so our response in England is largely mirrored in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

John McDonnell: Given that the largest number of people entering this country from SARS-affected areas will come through Heathrow airport in my constituency, will the Secretary of State or a member of his ministerial team meet local Members of Parliament and representatives of primary care trusts and the local authority to discuss the resource implications of these incidents, especially in the light of his second recommendation that there should be wider screening of incoming passenger flights under certain conditions?

Alan Milburn: My hon. Friend has written to me about those issues and I know that he has received several representations from members of the community and possibly from staff at Heathrow. I thank people who work there, especially those working in public health and the environmental health officers who have behaved extremely responsibly. Indeed, they have, off their own bat, introduced a system of random boarding of aircraft arriving from some SARS-affected areas to ensure that airlines are fulfilling their international health obligations. That is very welcome and if we can extend that system we should do so.
	My hon. Friend asks about a meeting with a Minister from the Department of Health. I am sure that we can arrange that.

Vincent Cable: What advice and reassurance can the Secretary of State offer the family of a teenager in my constituency who has a severely damaged immune system? They have already withdrawn her from school so that she does not come into contact with children returning from seriously affected countries after the Easter holiday. Would it not be helpful if the Secretary of State's guidance to local education authorities included information about the number of children returning from such areas and monitoring of their health?

Alan Milburn: The best advice that I can give is to refer the hon. Gentleman and his constituents to the information that is widely available through various websites, including NHS Direct. If he or his constituents have been unable to obtain access to that advice, I shall be more than happy to provide it in written form so that he can pass it on to them.

Paul Burstow: Given the importance of rigorous control of cross-infection, to which the Secretary of State referred, does he share my concern that scrupulous attention to hygiene and infection control in the NHS—for example, by hand washing—should be a key ingredient to ensure that not only SARS but any infection does not spread? Given that only a few years ago an Audit Commission report showed that hand washing was not being adequately done and given the fact that it is still not being adequately done, can we be as confident as the Secretary of State that the matter will not become a wider problem in the health service?

Alan Milburn: The hon. Gentleman is right to raise those concerns, which many of us share. That is why we have sent two communications to the NHS—a third will be sent either today or later this week—stressing the importance, at senior and chief executive level, of ensuring that the appropriate infectious disease control mechanisms are in place in NHS trusts. It is not simply a question of hand washing; probable SARS cases will need to be treated in an isolated environment. The WHO recommends barrier nursing. So far, such processes have proven effective in that they have successfully looked after six people with probable SARS and limited further spread. It is that—the limitation of further spread—which is so important in dealing with this serious illness.

Tax Credits

Dawn Primarolo: Mr. Deputy Speaker, with your permission, I should like to make a statement about the child and working tax credits that have been introduced this month.
	The introduction of the child tax credit is the biggest single change in support for families since the Beveridge reforms of the 1940s, and a more radical change than the introduction of child benefit 25 years ago. Ninety per cent. of families with children are eligible to benefit from the credit.
	The new tax credits represent the biggest-ever investment in families; no Government have spent so much on children and families. A single-earner couple working full-time at the national minimum wage, with two children, will receive about £400 a year more from the new tax credits compared with the working families tax credit and the children's tax credit which they replace. Some families are receiving as much as £4,800 a year; more than £90 a week for the maintenance of two children—a doubling of support since 1997. With these new tax credits, some groups are receiving extra child support for the first time, including student nurses and students.
	We are integrating the tax and benefits system to produce a fairer system, so the new tax credits are administered by the Inland Revenue and they continue to be paid to families when they move from welfare into work. The child tax credit is being introduced at the same time as the working tax credit, with its more generous help for low-paid workers, including disabled men and women or older people returning to work.
	I want to deal with each of the issues about the introduction of child tax credit that MPs have brought to me; but, first, it will perhaps help the House if I update it about the details on the current take-up of the new tax credits. I am pleased to say that the Inland Revenue has received more than 4 million applications. In addition, 1.3 million families on income support and jobseeker's allowance will be transferred automatically from next April to the child tax credit, but they are already benefiting from the increased level of support.
	There are many, including some Members, who said that families would simply not apply for the new tax credits and that take-up would be, and remain, low. That is simply wrong. All those families with incomes below £58,000 are entitled to receive a tax credit. More than 5.3 million people have either applied or are receiving it already. As a result, enhanced family support is reaching a far larger number of people than the old system of family credit or the working families tax credit, which it replaces. So far from people failing to claim those new tax credits, millions have claimed, and because we are not complacent, the take-up campaign will continue.
	I remind the House that families can still claim and get their tax credits backdated to 6 April. So with more than 4 million claims received in addition to the 1.3 million on income support and jobseeker's allowance, let me remind the House that families were given a choice about how often they receive payments: they could request to be paid either weekly or monthly. In addition to those on income support and jobseeker's allowance, more than 1 million families asked to be paid weekly, and the Inland Revenue is already making regular payments to those families. Most of those families are now in their fourth week of payment.
	However, two thirds of families asked to be paid monthly. The first date for monthly payment is today, followed by payments throughout the rest of this week. Indeed, one of the facts that the helpline has consistently had to confirm is that the earliest date for the first monthly payment is 28 April. So today, as planned, we have begun, as we told families, to pay the 2 million due to be paid every four weeks. I can tell the House that our aim is that those families will get their money by Friday of this week.
	The Inland Revenue informed families that they should claim their tax credits by 31 January, so that their awards could be set up in good time for the payment of tax credits to start in April. I have to tell the House that nearly 1 million claims have been received since the beginning of March. Those claims are being processed as fast as possible by the Inland Revenue, which is prioritising people who have asked to be paid weekly and those families who claimed working families tax credit.
	Some Members have also raised with me instances of families who did not receive their money when they expected it, particularly those who had claimed tax credits before 31 January but had not received their award notice or payment. I apologise for the difficulties experienced by individual families, and I can assure the House that the Revenue is doing all that it can to put things right. The Revenue has now contacted almost all those families, and the vast majority of them are already receiving payment. It is our intention that anyone who has made a complete application and has yet to receive money will do so by the end of this week, and arrangements are in place to make interim payments to people where necessary.
	Our first priority has been to ensure that all families receive the money due to them, but it has also been necessary to increase the number of staff to provide advice on the helpline by more than 700. At its peak, the helpline was receiving nearly 2 million calls a day, and it is still receiving 400,000 a day. In addition, the number of staff covering the MPs' helpline has been tripled, and because some claimants are now using the MPs' helpline number, the Inland Revenue will set up a new, additional direct number for MPs. I will write to every Member individually to inform them of the new number. So 1.3 million income support claimants are receiving their payments—as planned. For weekly claims, we are already paying more than 1 million families—as planned. From today, for monthly claimants, we are making payments to 2 million families—as planned—and we will continue to raise the number of payments as more and more claims are processed over the coming weeks.
	In doing so, we are tackling the problem of child poverty that we inherited and ensuring decent family incomes, in and out of work. We are making work pay for a wider range of people, helping them to help themselves out of poverty and to stay out of poverty. We are tackling the barriers to work by enabling people to afford the child care that they need. We are investing an extra £2.7 billion in supporting families with children and those in low-paid work.
	Because our child tax credit is available to nine out of 10 families with children, in and out of work, on top of child benefit, to the main carer, money no longer depends on the work status of the adult in the household, and the stream of income stays with people when they move into work. In the same way, the working tax credit will reach a wide range of those at risk of being in poverty even though they are in work, as well as continuing to support disabled workers and working families with children.
	It is a big undertaking to deliver a reform on this scale. We are determined, however, to pursue the objectives that we have set ourselves on tackling poverty and making work pay, and to make the investment in our country's future that these tax credits represent. The numbers who have claimed belie the persistent criticism that people would not claim, so we are well placed to do that.

Michael Howard: First, may I thank the Paymaster General for her courtesy in allowing me prior sight of her statement and in responding to the call for a statement, which I made in the letter that I sent to the Chancellor more than 10 days ago?
	Can the Paymaster General respond to the following three areas of concern? First, on the numbers involved, can she confirm the astonishing claim reported in the press this morning that even now, almost one month after the new system was introduced, 300,000 people have not had their benefits paid despite submitting their application forms by the January deadline? Is not that problem about to get worse? Those who have opted to receive payments on a four-week cycle are now due to receive their money. How many of those families will fail to receive their payments on time?
	Secondly, in view of the fact that Ministers have already withdrawn the old structure of financial support, which the new system was meant to replace, does the Paymaster General accept that the onus is on them to make sure that no one is out of pocket? What plans does she have to compensate those families who have lost out? How many families have received the emergency interim payments; what are the criteria for those payments; and what has been done to advise others who may be eligible of the availability of those payments? Will she now respond to the call from the shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), for an emergency extension of social fund loans to those in need as a result of this crisis?
	Thirdly, what of the advice that claimants are meant to receive? Can the Paymaster General tell the House more about the current state of the so-called telephone helpline and why that effectively collapsed despite costing £53 million to set up? When will it be fully operational again? What would she say to those such as the man who reportedly made more than 2,400 attempts to get through on the helpline, only to be put on hold for a quarter of an hour and told that the form that he needed would take 15 days to arrive? What efforts are being made to contact those who are eligible for help but have not applied for the credits?
	On take-up, the right hon. Lady gave the numbers of those who have applied. Can she give the number of those families who are eligible who have not applied? Is it not the case that that figure is in the region of 1 million?
	Is it any wonder that even before this shambles the Government Chief Whip told The Scotsman that the Chancellor's flagship system of tax credits is not appreciated or understood by the low paid? Is it any wonder that even before this shambles, as recently as last December, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said that
	"the tax credit system has not had the transforming impact we thought it would have and should have"?
	These tax credits were the Chancellor's brainchild. He was happy to boast about them at the time, but he has since gone rather quiet on the issue. He said in his Budget just three weeks ago that the system would allow parents to balance work and family life so that they can make "real and effective choices". So how would he answer my constituent, Mr. Bridges, who said:
	"I am now facing the decision as to which bills to stop paying . . . to ensure I am able to feed our children",
	and that
	"getting help from their helpline is like picking the six winning lottery numbers—nearly impossible"?
	Another of my constituents says:
	"I cannot begin"—[Interruption.]
	Labour Members ought to listen to this—it is their constituents, as well as ours, who are suffering. My constituent says:
	"I cannot begin to tell you how frustrated I am, and how concerned I am about the state of my finances . . . How do I feed my children? How do I pay my rent?"
	Are not hundreds of thousands of families as worried as they are? As one claimant told us,
	"being on a low income I need the money when it is due, which is why I applied five months ago".
	Is it not the case that this shambles is entirely the Chancellor's responsibility? Is it not the Chancellor who, since October 1999, has introduced five new tax credits for families, scrapped four of them and then introduced two new ones? Is it not the Chancellor who was warned by the then shadow Chief Secretary that the scheme carried the risk of leading to
	"even greater bureaucracy and complexity in our tax system and of it failing to be able to deliver to the needy when they are particularly in need of support"?—[Official Report, 10 December 2001; Vol. 376, c. 608.]
	Is it not the Chancellor who should be at the Dispatch Box today, accepting responsibility and apologising to the hundreds of thousands of families who have needlessly been caused distress and dismay because of his incompetence?
	Just three weeks ago, the Chancellor decided to call his Budget Red Book "Building a Britain of economic strength and social justice". Has a Red Book title ever been so inappropriate? Independent commentators have been queuing up to say that the Chancellor has got his figures on the economy wrong again. So much for economic strength. Will not the families caught up in this tax credit shambles view his promises on social justice as another sick joke?
	Ministers said that with this new system there would be one point of claim. Is it not clear that there is in fact one point of blame, and does it not reside in the person of the Chancellor? Once these immediate problems have been resolved—if they are resolved—is there not a need for an urgent inquiry to look both at the administrative problem and at the Chancellor's policy decisions which brought them about?

Dawn Primarolo: Let us take this nice and slowly for the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I am greatly encouraged that he and members of his party who said that this would be a disaster and that nobody would claim are now backing off from that allegation. To suggest that the system is a shambles is a travesty. Some 5.7 million families may benefit from the new tax credits; 3.2 million are in payment or about to be in payment. If we add to that the 1.3 million families, included in the 5.7 million, who are on income support and jobseeker's allowance and who have received their extra money, the right hon. and learned Gentleman can see immediately that although he may wish that millions have not applied, that is not the case.
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked a series of questions. With regard to the claims made before 31 January, as I said in my statement, the current position is that those families are receiving payment or are about to receive payment, or there are outstanding inquiries that we are rapidly trying to conclude.
	With regard to those families who did not receive the payment when expected, who felt that they would experience difficulties or were already doing so, as I said in my statement, the Inland Revenue will make an interim payment, and those payments are being made. There is no need to resort to the social fund—an interim payment can be made. With regard to compensation, as I have told the House repeatedly, if there are circumstances in which people did not receive the service that they were entitled to expect I shall certainly look very closely at that.
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman also asked about the helpline. I have explained to him that 700 extra staff were put on to the helpline to help with the enormous demand, at the height of which there were 2 million calls. Those staff are now in place. We are meeting 2 million claims this week, so calls will start to decline, and are already doing so. If the Inland Revenue received an application from a family by last Friday it will pay the family by next week unless there are outstanding queries to which we are awaiting a reply from the claimant. That does not spell a system in chaos. Millions of families are already receiving payment and millions more are about to receive payment this week. By the end of next week, the remainder who have replied will either receive payment or will have been contacted by the Revenue for further clarification.

Harry Barnes: A good scheme is in danger of getting a bad name because of a number of problems that claimants are experiencing. The credits may be coming through soon for a number of people but, nevertheless, there are masses of problems. The MPs need the helpline for exceptional cases—it is something that we are obliged to push and argue for on behalf of scores of people in our constituencies. They may represent only a small percentage of cases but are important in getting this right.

Dawn Primarolo: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that it is important to get this right and ensure that people receive payment when they expect it. Many people rang the helpline asking for confirmation of when the first four-weekly payment would be made. Such payments will be made today and throughout the rest of the week. The MPs' helpline is there to assist Members in any way that Members feel is appropriate. The number of staff working on that helpline has been tripled and, as I have told the House, to assist MPs, an additional helpline will be made available to cope with any queries about payment. However, I stress again that 3.2 million families are already receiving payment or are about to do so, and 1. 3 million families on income support or JSA are already receiving their money, which means that over 4 million families—5 million nearly—are in payment. That is a success story, but it is vital that all those families who want to receive the money get it speedily and, where there are difficulties, an interim payment is made.

Matthew Taylor: The Minister keeps saying that things are going as planned, yet my constituents could not get through on the phone and are not getting the payments that they need to pay their bills. Contrary to what the right hon. Lady has just said, not 5 million but 4 million are either getting payment or, in her words are "about to receive" it. How many of our constituents have heard those words as they try to pursue the payments that they need to pay their bills?
	Is it not a fact that 1 million have not claimed—twice as many as the Government said—or is that now "as planned"? Is it not the case that 1 million at least are not expected to receive payment for some time to come—that is the real admission in today's statement which the Minister glossed over—or was that "as planned"? Although the Department now likes to blame our constituents for not getting their applications in by 31 January, is it not the case that 300,000 people who met the timetable have not got their money? In any case, where in the prominent advertising did it say that people had to get their claims in by 31 January? The advertising material—it was the main warning of what people had to do—did not feature that information with any prominence.
	Ministers are now struggling with the problem. Are they at least prioritising? Do they have a system in place to enable them to prioritise those who are most needy and still missing out?
	Will the Minister explain why she has failed to give us any figures on the working tax credit? Is it true, as rumoured, that that system has been a total disaster, with almost no take-up? Will the Minister give us the figures? She clearly knows them because she has disaggregated the child credit claim figures.
	What lessons will the Minister draw from this fiasco for the pension credit that is now coming down the line? What will the Government do to make that simple? We still have no claim form. We have no idea of the notes that will be involved. We know that Ministers are already banking on 1 million pensioners failing to claim even though they are entitled to do so. That is because they find the forms too difficult to complete or they find it too demeaning to go through the means-tested process. Is it not time that Ministers admitted that the system is too complicated, that pension credit should be abandoned and that pensioners instead should be given decent pension increases, especially elderly pensioners who experience the most difficulty in completing the forms but are in most need of the money?
	Does the Minister regret not accepting the proposal that was made by Liberal Democrat Members in Committee that the existing benefit book system should be allowed to continue after 1 April where payments for credits have not been processed, which Ministers said at the time was unnecessary? They were clearly wrong.

Dawn Primarolo: I do not regret never taking the advice of the Liberal Democrats. Had I done so in this instance, the 3.2 million people in receipt of or about to be paid their child tax credit or working tax credit would not have the increased payments. The popularity of the scheme is clear. Four million claims have been received and tens of thousands of claims are coming in every day.
	There is not a missing million. I shall try to explain it again: 5.75 million families are able to benefit and 4 million claims have already been received. We must add to that the 1.3 million who are on income support or JSA. There is not a missing million.
	The hon. Gentleman asked specifically about claims that are coming in now, and about prioritisation. I can confirm that as we receive claims we are prioritising those who wish to have their payments made weekly, and trying to get that money to them as quickly as possible. Secondly, we are prioritising those who have previously been on working families tax credit or disabled persons tax credit. As I have said, by next week the Inland Revenue expects to have processed the claims that it had received as of last Friday. Payments will be made to the families unless there are outstanding inquiries relating to the details on the form.
	Given the huge take-up, I fail to understand how any reasonable person in the Chamber could say that take-up has not been a success.

Kevan Jones: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, but does she recognise that the failures of the system have caused real hardship for many of my constituents, such as Mr. and Mrs. Russ Jones of Sacristow, County Durham, who wrote:
	"We rely on this money on a day to day basis."
	They say that the income has ceased. The letter continues:
	"Yesterday was my son's birthday. I had the heart-breaking task to tell him that we were not able to buy him a gift."
	Will my right hon. Friend explain to Mr. and Mrs. Jones and many other constituents of mine who have contacted my office over the past week, why, as in the Jones's case, even though they made an application eight months ago, processing has not taken place? Why have Mr. and Mrs. Jones had to spend more than seven days trying to get through to the helpline? Will my right hon. Friend apologise to Mr. and Mrs. Jones and others and seriously consider paying compensation to some of the people who have suffered badly because of the failures of the system?

Dawn Primarolo: Of course I apologise unreservedly to my hon. Friend and his constituents, and to the other hon. Members who have indicated that similar circumstances have been brought to their notice. I reiterate that the Inland Revenue can and should be making an interim payment in such cases. Of course, as my hon. Friend says, we need to consider this matter urgently. I take note of his point about compensation, and I will come back to him on the specific case.

Kenneth Clarke: First, I thank the Paymaster General for the part that I am sure she played in getting an emergency payment to the constituent whose case I raised during the Budget debate. I hope to discover that that has happened to my other constituents. However, the right hon. Lady has obviously come to the House today in order to carry the can and, whatever else she does, to refuse to give any figure for the hundreds of thousands of people who have already failed to receive payments on which they were relying. She will have to give that figure in due course. I accept as a pretty good guess the figure of 300,000 that appeared in the newspapers this morning.
	Was not the scandal totally predictable, and was it not predicted by all those who said that it would take a very long time to turn the Inland Revenue into a department capable of paying out money as well as collecting it, and in particular paying it out weekly, on the day, to millions of people relying on it—as compared with the pace that the Inland Revenue is understandably used to adopting in respect of tax claims and tax payments by wealthier people? Will the Paymaster General give the advice to the Chancellor of the Exchequer which she may already have had the courage to give him from time to time—that he should stop introducing ever more complicated and bureaucratic changes to the tax and benefits system, changing and reinventing them and running far beyond the pace of the right hon. Lady's and the Inland Revenue's ability to deliver those on the ground to people for whom not getting the money is a disaster?

Dawn Primarolo: The right hon. and learned Gentleman and I have discussed the matter outside the Chamber. I say again to him that he is wrong when he asserts that the Inland Revenue is not capable of making those payments. Clearly, the 1 million weekly payments that are already being made, for the fourth week in many cases, demonstrate that the Inland Revenue is capable. The 2 million people about to be paid, who requested four-weekly payments, demonstrate that as well. The tax credits system, as is shown by the millions who have applied for it, supports families, is wanted by them and gets money to them when they need it. The Inland Revenue will continue to make sure that it delivers those priorities.

Geraint Davies: I welcome the fact that eligibility extends up to £58,000 for the household. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the 8 per cent. of people who have not claimed tend to be clustered at the higher end of the pay range? She should continue to focus on take-up at the lower levels of pay, where there is much higher eligibility and greater need. When she does the calculations to show the amount of money that is not taken up, as opposed to the number of people who are not taking it up, the picture will be even rosier.

Dawn Primarolo: I cannot confirm the analysis that my hon. Friend suggests, but I can tell him that tens of thousands of claims continue to be received by the Inland Revenue, in addition to the 4 million already received. That does not indicate to me or, I think, to any reasonable person that the system is not well known about, well supported and desperately needed by families.

John Redwood: Will the Paymaster General confirm that her figures, and the Government's figures generally, show clearly that more than a million people who are eligible to claim have not yet claimed and are not sure when they will, and that on her own admission today, another million people have claimed and cannot get the money paid on time? Is that not a disgrace? What does she intend to do about it, and will she say sorry?

Dawn Primarolo: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman could have been listening when I said that 3.2 million people are already being paid, or are about to be paid because they are paid monthly. An additional 1.3 million people are receiving their money because they are on income support or JSA and receive the increased payment. That leaves the claims that have been submitted to the Inland Revenue in the past weeks and months and need to be cleared as quickly as possible. I said in my statement that we had received more than 1 million claims since the beginning of March. I told the House that for those applications that the Inland Revenue had received by last Friday, the families would be paid by next week, unless there are outstanding inquiries about the details on the form that must be clarified to ensure that the families get the right amount. Where there are difficulties, interim payments can be made.

Roger Casale: I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement and congratulate her on introducing, in the face of such visceral and at times hysterical opposition from the Conservatives, a measure that will bring such substantial financial benefit to people on low incomes, especially those with families. May I press my right hon. Friend on the steps that she is taking to increase take-up among middle-income families with children? I am sure she will agree that that is one of the most attractive aspects of the scheme. Having spoken to families in my constituency, Wimbledon, I know that they fully intend to take up the tax credit, which they see as an entitlement and a right, not as some kind of hand-out. They see it as a mark of having a stake in our society and being included—unlike the old system, under which they were stigmatised by being left out.

Dawn Primarolo: I can confirm to my hon. Friend that the Inland Revenue will continue to increase the take-up of the new tax credits beyond the 4 million existing claims. To that end, advertising will continue, to remind those who do not know about the tax credits that if they put in their claim now, it can be backdated to 6 April. So as well as the 4 million claims that we have received, and the 1.3 million people on income support and JSA who are already receiving the payments directly, we will continue to run a take-up campaign to ensure that all those who are eligible submit an application and that it is processed speedily.

Roger Gale: I start by offering a bouquet not to the Paymaster General, sadly, but to those in her private office who over the Easter period took a great deal of trouble to sort out the cases of two families in my constituency who were nine parts destitute as a result of the introduction of the scheme and the fact that, on the one hand, money had been cut and, on the other hand, money had not been received. What concerns me is that there are scores of families in that position, who have had benefits reduced, while they are waiting for other moneys to come in.
	Before Easter I tabled a parliamentary question asking the Paymaster General if she would tell the House when employers could expect to receive all the information that they need to help with the implementation of the scheme. So far, that question has not been answered. Do the employers now have the information that they need to do their bit of the job?

Dawn Primarolo: If the hon. Gentleman tabled a question that has not been answered—I thought they all had—I apologise to him. I will ensure that he gets the reply, which I shall give now, as he put the question directly to me. I thank him for his compliments to my private office. That reflects not only on the civil servants in the private office, but on staff throughout the Inland Revenue, who have moved heaven and earth to ensure that where interim payments should have been made, they were made. As I said, I deeply regret the fact that some families faced great difficulties. Those needed to be put right speedily to ensure that they get the service to which they are entitled.
	With regard to the payment of the working tax credit, which will eventually be paid through the employer, but currently will be paid directly to the individual concerned, it will follow exactly the same route as the old working families tax credit. Employers asked for a 42-day lead-in time. I will check the number of days, but it is approximately that. The Inland Revenue will pay directly first, in instalments two-weekly to the claimant, and when the employer is able to put the tax credit on to the payroll, it will be paid through the wage packet. All that has been negotiated with employers. The software is in place, but the initial payment comes from the Inland Revenue to give employers time to set up their payrolls. That is exactly the same as working families tax credit and disabled person's tax credit, which worked very well.

Michael Connarty: I commend my right hon. Friend and the Chancellor for introducing the tax credits because they are logical, they make sense and they help families. I urge her not to give an inch to the Conservative prophets of doom and the moaning Minnies on the Liberal Benches and to forgive the previous Conservative Chancellor. He did not get a computer system right during his whole term in office and obviously does not understand that if a computer system is right weekly payments can be made with ease—it is called modern technology.
	Will my right hon. Friend take into consideration several cases from my constituency? A parent with a minimal income is still waiting for a weekly payment, although it is now 22 days since it should have been made, meaning that great hardship is occurring. A gentleman, whom I shall not name because he is a reporter for my local newspapers and may be listening for a reply, applied in October. He was phoned by the Inland Revenue in October and answered an outstanding question. He is still to be notified of how much he will receive. He has said that he does not know what he will do with his monthly budget if he does not receive payment by the end of the week. How may he and my other constituent apply for the interim payments that my right hon. Friend mentioned?

Dawn Primarolo: I agree with my hon. Friend: Opposition parties opposed both the introduction of the new tax credits and increased payments to families. They were the merchants of doom, proclaiming that take-up would be low. The tax credits are enormously popular and take-up is high. Opposition Members now thrash around and try to create illusionary figures about outstanding payments.
	Of course, getting money to the families concerned must take priority over any other process. I am deeply sorry to hear about the difficulties that my hon. Friend's constituents—especially the journalist—experienced getting a reply on the matter. I shall ensure that that will be examined as quickly as possible, as I have done with all hon. Members' points that have been raised with me and my office.
	A claimant family may apply for an interim payment to the Inland Revenue inquiry centre. People who are clients of Jobcentre Plus—I doubt that that will apply to a journalist—may apply directly to Jobcentre Plus, which has facilities to make an interim payment if necessary. If my hon. Friend or other hon. Members experience further difficulties, I am sure that they will not hesitate to get back to me.

Annabelle Ewing: It is a pity that the Paymaster General has not taken the opportunity to recognise that the introduction of the system has been a shambles and that it has left some of the most vulnerable people in our society high and dry. I telephoned the MPs hotline today. I was offered an apology, but that will not pay my constituent's bills that fall due on 1 May. Surely it is evident that a significant number of people have not received the service that they were entitled to expect, so why will the Paymaster General not give an unequivocal guarantee that those people will receive compensation?

Dawn Primarolo: Forgive me if I am wrong, but I think that the hon. Lady said that her constituent's payment falls due on 1 May. Today is 28 April, so if her constituent is due to receive a monthly payment, it will be paid this week. [Interruption.] Hon. Members should listen to what I say rather than asking questions regardless. If a claimant has not received a weekly payment that should have been made, he or she will be entitled to an interim payment. I have explained to the hon. Lady, as her constituent's representative, how that can be done. One of the biggest issues about the helpline has been the huge volume of calls, which has frustrated some claimants and prevented them from making contact. We responded by providing 700 new advisers for the helpline and the number of calls is falling. It is a priority to ensure that families such as that of the hon. Lady's constituent receive the money to which they are entitled. She can certainly give me her constituent's details.

George Foulkes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is predominantly Labour Members' constituents who are relying on the extra payments for their basic needs? We have deep concerns about any delays and we have raised them with my right hon. Friend, her colleagues and the Inland Revenue. I thank her for her apology to people who have been badly affected by the arrangement—she has repeated it twice today—and for her announcement of all the improvements and additions. While listening to the shadow Chancellor and the Liberal spokesman, it occurred to me that they had written their speeches without reading about all the improvements. Of course it is a pity that Mr. Bridges, the shadow Chancellor's constituent, has to wait for his money, but at least he will get it. If the shadow Chancellor were Chancellor, he would not receive it. Is it not astonishing, outrageous and incredible that we are hearing such criticism from Opposition Members when we are putting thousands of pounds into people's pockets—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

Dawn Primarolo: What is important to my right hon. Friend and all hon. Members is that those who have applied for the tax credits and are entitled to receive payments should receive them on time so that they may depend on the money. As I explained, 3.2 million people have been paid or are about to be paid. The other applications that we have received will be dealt with by the end of next week. Interim payments are available for families that experience difficulties that may be due to late payment, which I deeply regret. We shall continue to make such interim payments available when necessary. This is a huge system that is delivering support to families for the first time. If Opposition parties had any say, that support would not have been available in the first place. There were 3 million families in poverty when the Conservative party left government. That does not show that it is interested in the hardships that families face.

Alistair Burt: As somebody who has some sympathy for the Minister and finds her position today eerily familiar, may I ask why basic lessons were not learned from past administrative problems? Governments always seem to promise too much too soon and pressures seem to be far beyond what is anticipated, although history shows the pressures that could have been expected. One of my constituents, who applied on 18 December, has still not heard what her award is. She knows that she has an award but found out that when it was made notification was not automatically sent. She has no evidence to show that she is in receipt of the new benefit, which debars her from such things as free prescriptions. If lessons had been learned from the past, surely there would have been a slower approach and the Minister would not be in the position that she is today.

Dawn Primarolo: We looked at the lessons of the past. For example, there was only a 50 per cent. take-up of family credit when it started, and we have far exceeded that. I shall not go back through the experience of the Child Support Agency, which I am sure is engrained on the hon. Gentleman's memory.

Alistair Burt: For ever.

Dawn Primarolo: For ever, as the hon. Gentleman says.
	I have tried to explain that a huge number of families are receiving or are about to receive their money. The number of claims received is 4 million and rising. Every hon. Member has said that the priority is to get the money to families when they expect it, and that is our objective.

Paul Tyler: Will the Minister assure us that she has listened to the complaints and concerns expressed by Members on both sides of the House—not just today, but for weeks—about the delivery of the new credits and, in particular, the communications system, specifically the shambolic implementation of the hotline for MPs and the helpline for members of the public? As the former Minister, the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), said, surely the lessons should have been learned. When something of such complexity is introduced, it is important that members of the public and MPs can get information on it. Otherwise, a logjam builds up, as it has, and the situation gets worse. Will the Treasury give an undertaking that a lesson has been learned and that if a similar credit is introduced in future—perhaps for pensions—a fully manned system will be in place to provide information to the public and MPs?

Dawn Primarolo: The helpline has been in existence since last August and has functioned well all that time. As I explained, at its peak, 2 million calls a day were made to the call centre. In response, we assigned 700 more staff to deal with the calls. I assure the hon. Gentleman that not only do I listen carefully to what Members of Parliament say about their experiences, but I give specific consideration to what families tell us about their experiences. That is why I continue to set the priority that payment must be delivered on time, that interim payments must be available if that cannot be done, and that the claims that were received by 31 January are processed through the system. We aim to ensure that all claims received by last Friday will be completed by next week. It is an important system that provides support to families. As the most radical reform since the introduction of the Beveridge reforms, I am briefed on it daily and take note of what needs to be done to ensure success.

Patrick McLoughlin: Given the fact that, as the system has been so well introduced, we are all exaggerating the problems, will the Minister respond directly to a couple of complaints that I have received, which must, it seems, be unusual? One lady agreed her award but was not told how much it would be. She moved house during the process and, because the system could not match her details, failed security checks and will not receive anything for some time. Another lady has been told that because she applied online the forms will take a lot longer to process and her claim will take longer to sort out. Another lady has been told that her records have been "partially captured". Perhaps that has something to do with recent events, but I do not know what it means, and neither does my office. As so few cases are going wrong according to the Minister, would she mind if I gave those people the number of her private office for them to use as their helpline?

Dawn Primarolo: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and the rest of the House will celebrate the fact that 3.2 million people are receiving or are about to receive payment, in addition to the 1.3 million. Online applications should not take longer and should be processed at the same speed as other applications. Hon. Members have implored me to prioritise payment to those who are paid weekly and those who received the working families tax credit or the disabled person's tax credit, and that is what is happening. We are also clearing the claims that we have received, which as of last Friday stood at some 4 million.
	It is not the case that claimants will be unable to access passporting benefits because their exemption covers them until 31 July or that claimants will not receive information from the Inland Revenue. All hon. Members will accept that the information that is received on the applications needs to be correct, verified and cross-checked with the system. That has to proceed, as it always has, and we will do it as quickly as possible.

Christopher Chope: Are not people who pay their tax late or send in their tax return late fined? Is it not typical of the Government that when they have an obligation to pay a tax credit, they refuse to offer compensation? Will the Minister compensate my constituent who spent five days on the telephone trying to get through to the helpline? As she failed to do so, she went to the tax office in Bournemouth, where she had to queue before eventually being given a giro for £540. She had to take the day off work and leave her four children at home to be looked after by someone else. That tax office has now told her that the £540 giro will not be reclaimed or set against other income that she receives. Is that the bribe to compensate people, or will the £540 have to be repaid if she gets a payment through the bank?

Dawn Primarolo: Interim payments are made in circumstances in which families have not received the payment on the date that they requested or, in some cases, if they have elected to change from four-weekly payments to weekly. The interim payment is made to ensure that a family does not experience any difficulties. That has always been the policy. It has been clearly explained throughout and I did that again today.
	On the fines for non-payment of tax, the hon. Gentleman knows that people who submit self-assessment forms pay their tax later than those who are part of the pay-as-you-earn system. They are given a date on which to pay the tax, which is a considerable time after anyone else. Those penalties were introduced by a Government of whom he was a member.

James Paice: Is it not astonishing that although the Minister has kept so closely in touch with everything that has gone on, she does not seem to appreciate the anger and distress that we have all encountered on doorstep after doorstep and in letter, e-mail and phone call over the past three weeks? Does she not understand that countless people got their applications in before 31 January but have heard nothing? They do not know whether they will get any money, let alone whether it might arrive this week. It is all very well for her to talk about an interim award, but if people cannot get through on the helpline there is no way in which they can either know about it or apply for it. There are probably 1 million people who are wondering whether they will get any money and when it will arrive. She has said nothing to enlighten them.

Dawn Primarolo: I hope that when the hon. Gentleman is on the doorstep talking to constituents he will explain that he opposed the introduction of tax credits and that had his party had its way they would not be getting the money in the first place. I hope that he and his party explain that to the millions who are receiving or are about to receive payments.
	I have explained how the interim payments can be accessed. That information has been made available and will continue to be available so that we support those families who are experiencing genuine hardship if their tax credit has not arrived on time or if their application has been received and we are in the process of dealing with it. It is vital that families get the money to which they are entitled on time. As I said, 3.2 million people—more than under any other system—are receiving or are about to receive that money. Some 1.3 million on income support and JSA received the increased payments. That money, which goes into families' pockets, would have been denied them by Opposition Members.

David Tredinnick: Despite the Paymaster General's determined defence this afternoon, is it not clear that she has completely underestimated the scale of the task in hand? We have already heard about the chaos of the telephone system. What does she have to say about the fact that the Department ignored its own staff's worries about the failings of the computer system? Is she not aware that the back-payment system does not help those who spend the money that they receive straight away and need immediately to keep their families alive? Is it not a fact that tax credits give entitlements to other benefits such as free prescriptions? To make their claims, people need their tax award notification. What does she have to say to all those people who have not been able to claim their free prescriptions? What has that done to their health?

Dawn Primarolo: I shall try again. On passported benefits, there are interim arrangements for families who had an exemption certificate under the old arrangements. If they had a tax credit exemption certificate under the previous arrangements, it will have been extended and the claimant can use it until 31 July 2003, even if their circumstances have changed. If the claimant has lost the certificate, they can still sign for one.
	With regard to the missing applications, the hon. Gentleman has clearly not been listening. Some 4 million people have applied and 3.2 million are receiving payment or are about to do so. On top of those 3.2 million people, 1.3 million are on income support or JSA and are receiving the money to which they are entitled. That is not a system that is failing to deliver. Where families have not received, for whatever reason, the payments to which they are entitled or that they should have received, the Inland Revenue will make them an interim award. I have explained to the House how that can be done.

David Heath: Does the right hon. Lady accept that when people are living hand to mouth and have not received the payments that they deserve, their difficulties will not stop when the payments are made, whether as an interim or final payment? In the interim, the bills will have continued to come in and there will have been missed payments on gas, electricity and council tax. The banks will be putting in their £20 charges for unintentional overdrafts. First, will she do something about that by approaching the various authorities to ask them to be sensitive to the problems that people face? Secondly, will she ensure that everyone subject to delayed payment has in their hand a letter from her explaining the circumstances that have created the situation in which they find themselves, through no fault of their own?

Dawn Primarolo: No family will lose money. The payment from 6 April will stand. The interim payments are there to ensure that support is available to families who have experienced difficulties. There was a period in which the working families tax credit ran on before the new tax credit started. Each family was asked to state whether they wanted to be paid weekly or four weekly. That money is now available to them. I find it incredible that the hon. Gentleman's party—I hope that he is making this clear to his constituents while pressing his claims about special cases that need to be dealt with accurately—does not support the new tax credits.

Julie Kirkbride: The Paymaster General keeps parroting statistics, but does she realise how insulting that is to the many hundreds of thousands of families throughout the country who are at their wits' end because they simply do not know whether they will continue to receive the benefit on which they have come to rely? I have been contacted by many families in my constituency who have cancelled their standing orders because they do not know whether they will have the money to pay for them in the bank by the end of the month, as they have been unable to contact the Inland Revenue to find out about their award.
	May I press the Paymaster General on the questions that have been asked about compensation? For example, a lady in my constituency who has been claiming the working families tax credit does not know whether she will receive any money under the children's tax credit by the end of the month in just a few days' time. Can she be given compensation for the distress that has been caused and for the severe administrative chaos involved in her having to cancel standing orders because she did not know whether she would receive the money to which she is entitled?

Dawn Primarolo: I hope that the hon. Lady is explaining to her constituents why she opposed the introduction of the extra money and why, if she had had her way, people would be talking not about late payments, but about no payments whatever. Of course, it is important that families receive the money to which they are entitled. The payment week of the 2 million families who asked for four-weekly payments—two thirds of those who applied—starts this week, today, and they will receive that money. Where there has been extreme hardship, the circumstances will of course need to be looked at and a decision made about the appropriate and best response to the families who did not receive the service that they were entitled to expect.

John Bercow: Instead of the Paymaster General seeking to defend the indefensible and scapegoat applicants for ministerial ineptitude, it would have been so much better if her right hon. Friend the Chancellor had come to the House to give a gracious apology for this fiasco. Given that the Government legislated in the previous Parliament to allow the charging of interest in cases of late payment of commercial debt, and as hundreds and thousands, if not millions, of those who have suffered in this fiasco risk plunging into the red through no fault of their own, why cannot she today make good her pledge to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) that no one will lose money by guaranteeing that everyone who has not been paid so far will receive a payment with interest on top?

Dawn Primarolo: I have made clear the position with regard to payment, interim payments and the question of ensuring delivery on the appropriate date. I have also explained to the House the response to the families who are in particular need and require urgent support through the interim payment. In all friendship, I say to the hon. Gentleman that I did not see him complain when his party plunged 3 million children into poverty or when millions were unemployed and suffered as a result. This Government have introduced a reform that pays money directly to families and supports them whether they are in work or out of it and supports them in moving from unemployment into employment. We are spending more money than any other Government on supporting families and children. With regard to families who have experienced difficulties, I have said that I apologise for that and I shall ensure, as will the Inland Revenue, that interim payments are made where appropriate.

Point of Order

Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. One of the problems of the House of Commons is that matters that may be the subject of a point of order can refer to issues that were raised two hours, two hours and 20 minutes or two hours and 30 minutes earlier. On grounds of urgency and importance, will you bring to Mr. Speaker's attention the possibility of raising under Standing Order No. 24 the bewildering response of the Foreign Secretary to six questions from all parts of the House about taking custody of the documents found in the Foreign Ministry in Baghdad? Frankly, the impression was given that Ministers perhaps did not want to know too much about those documents.

George Foulkes: Quite the reverse.

Tam Dalyell: If it was the reverse, the documents should be taken into custody.
	I want to make one point. Politicians may not be too interested, but the courts will certainly ask questions about why the documents were not taken into the custody of the coalition. If Tariq Aziz and others are to be brought to trial, that will have to be taken into account. Certainly, if there is to be a case—I do not know whether there will be—of Galloway v. Telegraph Group newspapers, the lawyers will ask why the documents were left in the Foreign Ministry and not taken into custody.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I certainly accept that, as the hon. Gentleman says, there have been some developments since answers were given in the Chamber, but it would perhaps be appropriate—I know that he is familiar with the procedure—for him to put in an application to the Speaker's Office for discussion tomorrow.

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT (REPRESENTATION) BILL [PROGRAMME] (NO. 2)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 29 October 2002],
	That the following provisions shall apply to the European Parliament (Representation) Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 10th December 2002—

Consideration of Lords Amendments

(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement.

Subsequent stages

(2) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question put and proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]
	Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day

European Parliament (Representation) Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I draw the House's attention to the fact that privilege is involved in Lords amendment No. 17. If the House agrees to this Lords amendment, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.

Before Clause 2

Lords amendment: No. 1.

Yvette Cooper: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 20.

Yvette Cooper: This small group of amendments relates to part 1 of the Bill. As hon. Members who were involved in the Bill in Committee will recall, we discussed the limited circumstances in which the order changing the number of Members of the European Parliament could be made. As I said in Committee, our intention has always been that that should apply pursuant only to our treaty obligations. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee asked that the scope of the clause
	"should be expressly limited to changes arising out of Treaties which have already been the subject of an earlier Act of Parliament".
	That is what amendment No. 1 does. It defines "Community law", which is referred to particularly in clause 4, to mean in this context treaties that have been the subject of an Act of Parliament amending the European Communities Act 1972 to include such treaties and Council decisions or other Community instruments made under such treaties. That clarifies the position and ensures clear safeguards for Parliament.
	Amendment No. 2 was inserted to enable action to be taken to debate and put in place the orders necessary to change the numbers and distribution of MEPs in advance of those Community law provisions, and if necessary in advance of their incorporation into UK law.

John Redwood: I am glad that there has been some movement, but is not the Minister being a little economical with the truth? This is a climbdown. It was not clear during the original debate that the provision was limited to those areas where treaties had already been the subject of the proper debate and parliamentary scrutiny that is required for the passage of an Act, and the worry was that it would be back-door legislation without proper scrutiny.

Yvette Cooper: We have always made clear our intention to ensure that we could implement not only decisions made under treaties, but Council decisions that were pursuant to treaties. That is why the orders are necessary. We have responded to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee—

William Cash: The hon. Lady is being a little disingenuous. She may recall that not once, but two or three times, I raised the question of protocol A to the Nice treaty—I am sure that she remembers every detail of it. That was some time before the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee made its recommendations, and I am somewhat surprised that she should overlook the fact that although the matter was hotly debated, she has only partially addressed the points that I made.

Yvette Cooper: I hope that the hon. Gentleman's remarks suggest that he will therefore support the amendments. We have responded to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. Moreover, as we clearly explained in Committee, the problem with the amendments that he tabled is that we could not be sure that they would apply not only to the explicit wording in the treaty, but to Council decisions pursuant to the treaty. As I remember, we discussed that in considerable detail. We have ensured that the provision is framed in such a way as to cover not only the explicit wording of the treaty, but Council decisions that are pursuant to it. That is important.
	Amendment No. 2 enables debate to take place in advance, but it is important to recognise that it does not allow the orders to be brought into force until the conditions set out in amendment No. 1 apply and, in effect, until the Community law provisions come into force. That is necessary because the treaty of accession that sets out the number of MEPs for 2004 will not come into force until 1 May 2004, which is only five or six weeks before the election. Furthermore, if one of the accession states should fail to ratify the treaty, a Council decision under the protocol on enlargement annexed to the treaty of Nice will make a pro rata correction to the number of MEPs, which could enter into force at a similarly late stage. We expect, however, to know what the numbers of MEPs will be shortly after all the referendums in ratifying states are completed in September this year. It is important that everyone with an interest in the elections—those who are involved in the administrative arrangements, electoral returning officers and those who are involved in the parties in terms of campaigning and candidates—can plan with some sense of what the arrangements will be for 2004. We therefore expect to be able to debate and to make the order well in advance of 1 May 2004, even though it will not actually come into force until that date or the date on which the Council decision comes into force. The amendment solves the timing problem to allow electoral administrators, candidates and parties to proceed on a firm basis early in 2004.
	Amendment No. 3 is simply a consequence of amendment No. 2, which moves two subsections displaced by amendment No. 2 to a more logical place, and amendment No. 20 corrects a typographical error.
	I commend the amendments to the House.

William Cash: I have already made one of the points that I intended to make in response to the Minister. She is indeed being disingenuous, as I suggested. We debated the provision significantly in Committee and on Report, but it is still no more than a partial response to the points that we made, which at that time were resisted by the Government. Before the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee made its recommendations, the Minister was not prepared to accept the points that I made. I have here protocol A of the Nice treaty, which deals with the enlargement of the European Union, and which, in article 2, sets out the provisions concerning the European Parliament. The Minister rightly says that it is perfectly possible that a number of countries may decide—they would be wise to do so—to vote against the proposals in a referendum, but the fact remains that article (2)(3) states:
	"If the total number of members referred to in paragraph 2 is less than 732, a pro rata correction shall be applied to the number of representatives to be elected in each Member State, so that the total number is as close as possible to 732, without such a correction leading to the number of representatives to be elected in each Member State being higher than that provided for in Article 190(2) of the Treaty establishing the European Community".
	However, it then goes on to say:
	"The Council shall adopt a decision to that effect."
	In other words, protocol A already prescribes the manner and vires of the decision.
	The amendment, which refers to an anticipated change in Community law, states:
	"In this Part 'change under Community law' . . . means a change made by . . . a treaty provision that is part of the Community Treaties; or . . . any provision of a Council Decision, or of any other instrument, made under a treaty provision that is part of the Community Treaties."
	The provision to which the Minister refers is specific: it is a decision under article 2(3) of protocol A. It therefore surprises and concerns me that she is not prepared to stick to the words of the treaty and refer in terms to the fact that the decision on which she relies is already prescribed.
	The amendment to clause 4 constitutes another substantial change, which is partly a response to points that I made in Committee and on Report, to the timing of an order. We had extensive debates, which we do not need to repeat. Although I am prepared to concede that some progress has been made, and that it is the job of Government and Parliament to respond to reasonable points that the Opposition and other parties make, the provision is exceptional and objectionable. It is objectionable because it tries to deal with the fundamental point of principle that I have made throughout the proceedings on part 1.
	The Lord Chancellor and the Minister as his vicarious representative on earth have provided that an order making an amendment to section 1 of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002, which prescribes procedure and the number of seats allocated to each member state,
	"may be made before the provision making the relevant change has entered into force."
	It may be highly convenient for those who have regard to the diktats and decrees of Brussels and the order-making powers that are incumbent on Ministers in the European Communities Act 1972 to say that the requirement to debate such matters, or at least to do so at the right time, is a waste of parliamentary time and that we have to be more realistic about that in a modern world.
	As the Minister said in Committee, those who do not have a majority in Committee do not win votes. She also suggested that the outcome would be based on a European decision, and that we would not win our case on that, either.

John Redwood: Is not the Bill's great irony the fact that it genuflects to democracy by offering us elected offices to put before the British people but does so in such an undemocratic way that there can be no proper democratic debate or discussion, and that the Community cannot work out a timetable for agreement that leaves us time to undergo a proper democratic process?

William Cash: I agree with my right hon. Friend. The problem emerges in all sorts of other arenas such as the Convention on the Future of Europe and proposals that pre-empt proper democratic decision making by this Parliament, thereby reducing it to rubble. We are expected to accept all that for reasons such as: it will happen anyway; it is good for us. The sort of discussion that we would expect at the right time will be precluded.

John Bercow: I wish to underline the significance of the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) made. Will my hon. Friend comment on what he believes that the Government intend to be interpreted or connoted from the words "anticipated change"? For how long does it have to be anticipated? What forum will be the subject of the anticipation? Who will anticipate it? The words are so spectacularly imprecise that they are constitutionally perilous.

William Cash: I personally believe that the provisions are not only perilous but damaging to the democratic process. As we said in Committee and on Report, the anticipated change depends on events that have not yet occurred. The proposal and the mandates are therefore based on a hypothesis. For example, we do not know how many countries will agree to the changes. We do not know whether they will be agreed in Poland. [Interruption.] The Minister for Europe had to eat humble pie over several European matters recently, including the common foreign and security policy. He now makes another of his famous predictions. Poland represents a significant number of seats in the European Parliament, and it is possible that it will reject the proposals.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) said, a range of obstacles has to be overcome before the final decisions can be made under the decision to which I referred earlier. It is not right to make provision in advance of decisions on a hypothesis that renders nugatory and makes a laughing stock of the parliamentary process.
	Amendment No. 2 refers to proposed new subsection (2C), which would provide that
	"no amendment to section 1 . . . may be made so as to come into force... if the relevant change is made by a provision . . . before that provision has entered into force".
	Despite the gobbledegook and wrapping up in ribbons, there is an attempt to provide that the Government will legislate in embryo and enable their wishes on "anticipated change" to be effected under the order-making power. However, they appreciate that matters may not turn out in the way in which they would like; hence in response to the Opposition's demonstration of the constitutional black hole into which they were moving on Report and in Committee, they simply tried to provide that
	"no amendment . . . may be made so as to come into force"
	unless the provisions that I mentioned were in force. That stretches the parliamentary process to the point of incredulity.
	The amendments are unprecedented, undesirable and unnecessary. I therefore do not intend to ask my colleagues to vote for them. However, I propose to divide the House on only the first amendment in the group. My comments on the others should be perceived in the light of the vote against it; otherwise we could be here for much longer than the time for which the programme motion that the Government have imposed on us provides. I am sure that they do not want to keep us here to the last minute.

David Heath: The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) is in danger of not accepting a yes, however guarded, hedged around with circumstances or faltering, for an answer. The Minister might have been a little more explicit in acknowledging that the proposal in amendment No. 1 was pressed upon her both by me and by the hon. Gentleman in Committee and on Report, because we were concerned about the rather nebulous way in which the Bill was originally drafted.
	I am not entirely satisfied even now that the Bill is sufficiently explicit. I cannot for the life of me understand why the Government are being so coy about this. The Bill implements the treaty of Nice, protocol A, article 2, paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4. Why do they not just say that? Most of us would be extremely happy—I cannot speak for the whole House because some may not be—to see enacted an explicit measure bringing into effect what the Lord Chancellor on behalf of the Government proposed as a result of a treaty signed by Her Majesty's Government and debated by the House. Instead, we have these vague and imprecise terms that allow suspicions to be formed that there is a range of other secret treaties or obligations that have yet to see the light of day and which the House will be refused the opportunity to debate fully simply because of the way in which the Bill is worded.
	As I say, I do not believe that that is the case, which is why I am so irritated by the way in which the Government have chosen to address the issue. I believe that they are simply trying to ensure that the Bill to allow for enlargement is introduced in good order. As I told the hon. Gentleman in Committee, I do not for one moment buy the notion that a Minister of this Government, even the Lord High Chancellor, would deliberately reduce the United Kingdom's capacity to be represented in the European Parliament in the absence of a reduction in the overall size of the European Parliament. That would be a nonsensical position. However, it seems odd that the Government persist in legislating in generalities rather than in specifics, which is effectively what is being done here.
	I shall support amendment No. 1 because it improves the Bill, and I shall recommend that my right hon. and hon. Friends do so too. I am partly reassured by the fact that amendment No. 2 will not come into force without the various treaty provisions coming into force. That squarely addresses the point made by me and by the hon. Gentleman in Committee and on Report. But it prompts the question of the necessity for pre-emptive legislation other than specifically in the context of the Nice treaty. Again, I ask the Minister why on earth the Nice treaty is not specified. The first part of the Bill is effectively a ratification process for the Nice treaty, so why on earth do we not make that explicit?
	The remaining amendments simply regularise and improve the Bill and, in one case, correct a glaring error that, despite our best endeavours, we seem to have missed in Committee. I am glad that that has now been corrected.
	I welcome the Government's somewhat reluctant acknowledgement of the force of the arguments that were put at an earlier stage in the proceedings. It is a shame that we have to have the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee to make the point that was quite adequately made by both Opposition parties in discussions on the Bill. It would have been more generous of the Government to have acknowledged that and to have simply said that they had taken our advice and put it into the Bill.

John Redwood: I share the worries of Opposition Members that this is only a partial recantation by Her Majesty's Government. It is a pity that the Minister did not come in a more humble spirit and say that a mistake had been made and that the debate led by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) had made an impact. It would be so much better if Ministers practised what they sometimes preach. I thought that the idea of Parliament was to bring to bear on issues the collective mind of the elected representatives of this country, and where good points were made, from wherever they might come, that Ministers should listen to them and take them on board. That was how I tried to conduct myself as a Minister. There were times when I accepted amendments in Committee and was happy to do so because I did not think that Ministers and the civil service had a monopoly on wisdom when it came to drafting such measures. In this case, it was a material point that went to the heart of democracy: the right of this House to have a prime discussion and primary legislation on matters that Ministers certainly think are of major importance—the question of how many representatives there should be in the European Parliament as it develops, how they should be chosen and the areas that they might represent.
	The Bill shows that Ministers have little ability to influence the pace and nature of debate in the EU. Surely Ministers should explain our democratic system to our partners on the continent and explain that, as a matter of courtesy to the House of Commons, they should agree not merely the general outlines, but the actual numbers of MEPs in good time for the House to debate and legislate with primary legislation before the elections are called. It is bad manners on the part of the Community not to offer Britain, and for all I know several other countries with similar democratic traditions, the time and space to debate these important matters in the traditional way rather than having to hurry through cobbled-together legislation and then having to change that under protest and under pressure because some of the legislation fell foul of the usual procedures and ways of conducting business.
	Ministers say that through this device we can anticipate the number of MEPs that may be required. I do not know whether that comes from the Foreign Office tradition that thinks that the Beano is a stronger source of authority than some of the European documents that it wishes to dismiss when we try to debate them, and whether we have to look in the pages of the Beano to see how many MEPs might be needed and legislate on the back of that, or whether Ministers have in mind something more substantial before bringing before the House the exact number of MEPs that they wish to see.

John Bercow: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a danger that the inclusion of the words in the Bill "anticipated change" could themselves act as a self-fulfilling prophecy? That is to say that the very fact of including the words and predicting the scenario could force the pace of events within the Community in a direction that it might otherwise have not have taken.

John Redwood: It could have that impact, or we could end up legislating twice. We might anticipate wrongly and the House would have to deal with an embarrassing correction from Her Majesty's Government.
	I urge Ministers, first, to accept tonight that they have given some ground, and rightly so. That would be sensible, accepting their role in democratic debate. Secondly, I would like Ministers to assure the House that, when negotiating such matters in future with our partners in the EU, they will try to obtain more space and time so that we can go through our usual democratic processes and not feel rail-roaded and dealt with rather shabbily, as we do tonight.

Yvette Cooper: I knew that I would need my copy of the Nice treaty. When the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) gets a chance to speak about Europe, it is always useful to have a copy ready to hand.
	I am slightly puzzled by the concerns of the hon. Member for Stone about this issue, because he seems to think that the Council's pro rata decision under the Nice treaty is already prescribed, if various states fail to ratify. Yes, the way in which the Council will need to make such a decision is prescribed; it has to be a pro rata decision. That was among the many points that I made when we discussed this in Committee. It will have to make a pro rata adjustment. The Council's decision is pursuant to the treaty, but given that the numbers in question are not on the face of the treaty, it is important to clarify that the numbers—the final end point in terms of the numbers of MEPs that we shall have—and the Council's decision, should a pro rata adjustment need to be made, are both covered in the Bill. It will be possible to introduce an order that will implement the Council's pro rata decision under the treaty of Nice if such a decision is needed.
	The hon. Gentleman seems to be complaining that this is referred to in the Nice treaty. We have always said that this is about the decisions that are pursuant to that treaty, which has been debated in this place and incorporated in UK law by this Parliament. That should surely constitute the safeguard that the hon. Gentleman is asking for. He is concerned that Parliament has not had a chance to debate these issues, but the fact that it has debated the Nice treaty and incorporated it in UK law should surely be the answer to his concerns.

William Cash: The hon. Lady might recall that I tabled 240 amendments to the legislation incorporating the Nice treaty. Her answer does nothing to contest the argument that I am presenting, which is that the provisions in subsection 1(a) and (b) of proposed new clause 1 are too wide. They refer to
	"(a) a treaty provision that is part of the Community Treaties; or
	(b) any provision of a Council Decision, or of any other instrument, made under a treaty provision that is part of the Community Treaties."
	The Minister must realise that that is so wide that it is not confined to the protocol under the Nice treaty; it is wider than that. Perhaps I can offer her a suggestion. She knows that the European constitution is coming up, and that it will be wrapped up with the latest articles that have just been put forward and which include a whole range of provisions for consolidation of treaties and the tabling of amendments. That is probably therefore what this is all about—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

Yvette Cooper: Madam Deputy Speaker, I thought that it would not be long before we strayed into such territory, but that is not the subject of the Bill and I will not debate those issues now.
	Yes, the hon. Gentleman did table an immense number of amendments to the legislation incorporating the Nice treaty, but the fact that he does not like the treaty does not mean that Parliament did not get the chance to debate it. He might not like Parliament's decision, but the UK Parliament decided to incorporate the treaty of Nice in UK law, and he should stop trying to use Parliament as a cover for the fact that he simply does not like the treaty or the European Union. That was most telling in his opening remarks, in which he said that if people were wise, they would vote against the provisions. I think that that probably sums up where a lot of this is coming from.
	The hon. Gentleman raised some concerns about amendment No. 2. Let me try to spell this out again. The order cannot come into force until the Community law provisions come into force. It cannot be implemented until those relevant decisions come into force. It is, however, sensible to be able to debate the matter in advance. Of course we can anticipate now that 78 is the number of MEPs that the Copenhagen Council and other discussions that have taken place across Europe have allocated not just to the UK but to other countries as well, if all countries ratify. We shall also have the ratification decisions by September this year. Conservative Members seem to be asking for us to wait until 1 May 2004—when the treaty of accession comes into force and at which point elections will be just five or six weeks away—to tell the electoral administrators, candidates and political parties how many MEPs there are going to be. They are suggesting that, in the interim, we should simply leave them to guess on the basis of what they read in the papers, while we give them a nudge and wink and say, "Well, it will probably be 78, but we cannot have a debate about it in Parliament. Everybody is capable of reading the papers, and electoral administrators up and down the country will be capable of working out that the anticipated number is 78 but, no, Parliament just cannot do it."
	Conservative Members seem to be suggesting that we should take that position. That is just not sensible when a whole load of people across the country have to organise an election. They have a hard enough job as it is; an immense amount of work goes into such organisation. Surely we should be able to say, very sensibly, that we can debate the order now, when we are able to, and give those people warning as to what we expect to take place. The order cannot come into force until the Community law comes into force, but it is sensible that we should be able to have that debate in advance.
	The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) has an obsession with the word "anticipation". The term "anticipated changes" allows the Lord Chancellor to refer anticipated changes to the Electoral Commission and to ask for its advice and recommendations. If necessary, the Lord Chancellor can refer a series of options on which it can make recommendations. Again, this prevents us from having to wait until the treaty of accession or other treaties come into force, possibly at a very late date, before we can even ask the Electoral Commission to advise us on the distribution of MEPs.

John Bercow: Any idea that the Lord Chancellor should be entrusted with the responsibility for determining what constitutes anticipation in these circumstances is scarcely reassuring to most right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. May I ask the Minister, however, to agree to the principle of consistency in these matters and, therefore, to tell the House how she reconciles the decisions under the treaty of Nice that have necessitated the Bill and the amendments to the order-making power with the prior inclusion in the treaty of Amsterdam of the protocol on the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, because there is obviously a direct read-across?

Yvette Cooper: I should have brought my treaty of Amsterdam. I knew that I was taking a risk by just bringing a copy of the treaty of Nice to the House this evening. The treaty of Nice sets out the clear and simple issue, which the Bill is trying to implement, of changing the number of MEPs in order to allow the accession states fair representation in the European Parliament. We cannot simply unilaterally decide how many MEPs we want to send to the European Parliament this year—they would arrive there and there would not be any seats for them. Clearly, the number of MEPs that each nation is entitled to send has to be negotiated and agreed across Europe. Those decisions then have to pass through the appropriate incorporation into UK law, and the House decided to incorporate the treaty of Nice in that way. The treaty set out a simple principle, which does not need the treaty of Amsterdam or any other treaty that the hon. Member for Buckingham chooses to throw into the debate to explain it.
	Hon. Members have asked whether there will be a debate on these matters. There has already been a debate on the treaty of Nice, and there will be a debate on the treaty of accession, which will set out the number of MEPs for 2004, when the legislation to incorporate the treaty of accession will come before the House. My hon. Friend the Minister for Europe, who is on the Front Bench, has responsibility in those matters.
	The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) is right: the amendments improve the Bill and I hope that Conservative Members will recognise that and will have the sense to vote for them.

Question put, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment:—
	The House divided: Ayes 270, Noes 113.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 3 agreed to.

Clause 9
	 — 
	Electoral Commission Recommendation
	 — 
	As to the Electoral Region to be Combined with Gibraltar

Lords amendment: No. 9.

Yvette Cooper: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to deal with Lords amendments Nos. 8, 11, 12, 14, 15 and amendment (a) thereto, 16, 17 18, and 19.

Yvette Cooper: All these amendments are concerned with provisions in the Bill relating to the role of the Government of Gibraltar in the preparation for, and conduct of, the European Parliament elections in Gibraltar. They stem from the very constructive debate that took place at previous stages in this House, in the other place and with the Government of Gibraltar. As I explained in Committee and on Report, we were keen to introduce amendments that address the concerns raised in Committee and by the Government of Gibraltar. It was important to consult them before doing so, and we have brought forward amendments in the other place with that in mind.
	Lords amendments Nos. 14 and 15 deal with issues relating to the jurisdiction of the courts. They move the original provisions into a specific clause on jurisdiction, and set out more clearly that the powers are concerned with conferring jurisdiction on Gibraltar and the UK courts, not simply on the latter. Our intention remains, as we explained in Committee, that issues that would normally be dealt with in the UK by magistrates courts, the Crown court or county courts will be dealt with locally by the courts in Gibraltar, but that issues that tend to be dealt with by the High Court or the election courts—issues that might involve the result of an election in the region as a whole—will be dealt with by the UK courts. These amendments set out more clearly that that is possible. Also included in the clause is an express reference to a power to provide for a judge from the supreme court of Gibraltar to have a role on the elections court should a case need to come before it, and should such action be regarded as appropriate in those circumstances.

John Redwood: Are the Government of Gibraltar entirely happy with these amendments, or do they still have reservations and criticisms?

Yvette Cooper: I have a letter from the Government of Gibraltar, and if the right hon. Gentleman will give me the chance, I will find it while other Members are speaking and read it to him later, so that the Government of Gibraltar can speak in their own voice. Certainly, we have had considerable further discussion with them.
	I draw hon. Members attention to amendment (a), which I have tabled, to Lords amendment No. 15. It corrects an error in the new clause, the intention of which is to enable the conferring of jurisdiction on the courts to be made under either regulations or an order. The current reference is limited to "regulations", and the amendment corrects that error.
	Amendment No. 16 confirms expressly that the Government of Gibraltar can play a role in making legislation that relates to the European parliamentary elections provided for under this Bill. In fact, we expect the Government of Gibraltar and the House of Assembly to pass some of the necessary legislation, and we expect to work with them closely on some of the follow-on subordinate legislation that will be needed.
	Amendment No. 4 adds the leaders of the political parties in the House of Assembly to those who will be consulted by the Electoral Commission. Amendments Nos. 8 and 11 apply to the returning officer. We had established that the returning officer should be appointed by the Governor of Gibraltar in the same way that the House of Assembly's electoral registration officer is currently appointed, as we understood that the same person would be appointed to both posts. However, amendment No. 8 adopts a similar approach by simply stating that the clerk of the House of Assembly should hold the post of electoral registration officer for Gibraltar. I understand that the Government of Gibraltar are content with that amendment.
	Amendment No. 12, which is more technical, improves the distinction between the status of Gibraltar and that of a local authority. Clause 19 is about providing for the Government of Gibraltar to place at the disposal of the electoral returning officer for the European Parliament elections the services of their officers. It is a parallel provision to that within the UK, and it was important to distinguish appropriately between the status of Gibraltar and that of a local authority.
	Amendment No. 17 refers to clause 22, which makes financial provision for expenditure arising from the Bill's provisions. The basic intention in respect of financing of the European parliamentary elections in Gibraltar is that the UK consolidated fund will pay for the Gibraltar returning officer's expenses, and Gibraltar will pay for its local registration officer. Gibraltar will use its own legislation to enable it to pay for the latter expenses, so the amendment removes from clause 22 any provision for this purpose, as it is no longer necessary.
	Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 are minor, technical amendments that ensure that certain references in clauses 24 and 25 are correct.

William Cash: Anyone listening to the Minister might be forgiven for assuming that the Government and the people of Gibraltar are entirely satisfied with the proposals, and that there are not in fact several important matters that have effectively been glossed over—a process that we got used to in Committee and on Report.
	The Minister has an extraordinary capacity for making light of matters that are hotly debated and controversial and that go to the heart of many issues that the Gibraltar Government, and the people of Gibraltar as a whole—as reflected in the referendum—feel very strongly about. The cursory and arrogant manner in which the Minister disposed of those questions is consistent with the criticisms that I made of the whole Bill—that Gibraltar matters are being dealt with in an imperialistic and colonialistic fashion. One would not have expected it—or, at least, not in the past—of the present Government. They surprise us all the time—sometimes in a way that is more to our liking than at other times.
	One central question is the overriding concern of the Gibraltar Government to make it clear that the territory of Gibraltar, not just its electorate, is being enfranchised. It is argued that it is all about individual electors and the electorate, but if a significant proportion of my electorate were to be excised from parliamentary representation and I said that it was not both territorial and electoral, I would be severely criticised. The Government are playing games with the notion of the electorate. What is happening is part of a process and, in practice, despite the constitutional fictions presented by the Government, the territory is being enfranchised. To enfranchise a territory, it is necessary to do so through its constitutional mechanisms and institutions.
	The ambivalence and ambiguity of the Bill is highlighted by the Government's refusal to include Gibraltar in the name of the constituency. I tabled an amendment to that effect, which was debated in earlier proceedings. It is perfectly logical, as with so many constituencies in the United Kingdom, to have double or even treble names to reflect the territorial aspect of the electorate in question. It defies belief, and surprises and disturbs me, that there is no recognition of the fact that Gibraltar is by any standards an important part of the history of this country and strategically still of immense importance. I hope that nothing in the constitutional proposals—I must not go into detail—will in any way lead to a change in the status of Gibraltar. As I said, it is illogical that the name of one of the two territories of the combined region should not be reflected in its name.
	The Minister explained that in terms of relative size and numbers, an issue that cropped up during the debate. However, we believe that Gibraltar should be included in the constituency name because the reality is territorial as well as constitutional. I do not believe in constitutional theology, only in the relevance of constitutional frameworks in the context of practical results. The current state of affairs shows how the Government have failed to combine the practice with the constitutional arrangements that they are proposing.
	Amendment No. 4 poses a serious problem. The Government have partially responded to the representations that I made in Committee and on Report. Originally, the process of discussion and consultation was too limited, but the amendment would allow for the Chief Minister and other political leaders to be involved in the process of consultation with the Electoral Commission in respect of the electoral region to be combined with Gibraltar. That is a step in the right direction, but, unfortunately, the Government have insisted that consultation with the Governor should be included, which causes difficulties that I will explain.
	Elections are fundamentally a political and democratic event. They are, under the Gibraltar constitution, a defined domestic matter. That is important, as the Minister well understands. Indeed, elections fall within the competence of the Gibraltar Government and the House of Assembly. In no sense whatever does the Governor represent the people of Gibraltar. The Minister knows that the Governor represents the Crown: it is a prerogative appointment, so—in constitutional practice—the Foreign Office represents the reality of the position of the Governor.

Andrew MacKinlay: They are bad losers on that question.

William Cash: I passed through Thurrock this afternoon and I was thinking about the hon. Gentleman as I drove up the A20. I wondered whether he would be present in the debate. I concur with what he said. In no sense does the Governor represent the people of Gibraltar and neither do they feel represented by him. The difficulty with the amendment is that its provisions are democratically inappropriate and irrelevant.

John Redwood: It is important to note that a duty to consult does not mean a duty to agree. We have seen how Gibraltar has been bamboozled in the past when consultation has produced good advice, but it has been ignored.

William Cash: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for making that point. He is absolutely right—I have made the same point on several occasions in earlier proceedings—that consultation means no more than listening to what people have to say. A framework may be in place to ensure that people are listened to carefully, but it does not go beyond that. We are glad that some movement has taken place, but dissatisfied in respect of the substantial points that I have made.
	We agree with amendments Nos. 8 and 11 and we are glad that they have been accepted. Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 relate to clause 21, and amendment No. 15 would insert a new clause entitled "Jurisdiction of courts". The election court's decision would impact on the election result for the entire combined region, so we must expect it to have jurisdiction over that whole region. That could be achieved by UK legislation bestowing the requisite jurisdiction in respect of the UK part of the region, and by Gibraltar legislation bestowing it similarly in respect of the Gibraltar part. As a result, between the two pieces of legislation, the court would have jurisdiction over the whole.
	No one suggests that the Gibraltar court should have jurisdiction to dispose of the issues for the entire region. That would be ridiculous, because Gibraltar is only part of a combined region. It has been proposed that the UK election court should constitute the election court for Gibraltar, but that it should be appointed under Gibraltar legislation.
	That seems a reasonable suggestion. It has been proposed that a Gibraltar judge should join the election court, which is an acceptable and sensible step in the right direction. However, that does not alter the fundamental point that I have already made about the essence of jurisdiction.
	It is suggested that the court would also be Gibraltar's election court, pursuant to local constitutional provision. It would thus become a Gibraltar institution, in the same way as the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, even though that is a United Kingdom court. There would thus be a better way of dealing with the jurisdictional problem posed by the new clause. Glad as we are that some movement has been made in that respect, it is, unfortunately, not possible to accept the proposed mechanism for ensuring that the election court's jurisdiction extends to Gibraltar. Regrettably, that problem remains on the table and has not been resolved, despite some movement in the right direction.
	Lords amendment No. 16 would insert a new clause on the effect of statutory powers on the capacity of the Gibraltar legislature. I regret that the Minister did not go into detail about that extremely important provision. Unfortunately, the amendment fails to deal with the fact that Gibraltar's legislature should play a legislative role that recognises the relevance of its territorial institutions. In fact, the proposals would go in the opposite direction by giving United Kingdom subsidiary legislation supremacy over Gibraltar primary legislation. That is a serious problem. It would have been far better, even with a provision for consultation between the Lord Chancellor and the Chief Minister, if the Gibraltar House of Assembly had been given power to legislate on any provision required to give effect to the Act in Gibraltar.
	Such a mechanism could have been employed by using Gibraltar's legislative procedures in consultation with the Lord Chancellor. I would anticipate no difficulty in producing the right result, because the Gibraltarians are, above all, practical and reasonable people. They appreciate the necessity of provisions, in the right context, so that Gibraltar would not be attempting to legislate for the whole of the combined region. However, when provisions affect their territory, institutions and status, it seems insensitive, to say the least, that the matter should be dealt with by giving UK subsidiary legislation superiority over Gibraltar primary legislation.
	Furthermore, after the provisions have gone through, I do not expect the people of Gibraltar to sit back and say, "That's fine." It is fair to say that they retain considerable residual suspicion as to Spanish aspirations towards Gibraltar. I hope that I do not misinterpret anything that was done in respect to Iraq in imagining that there might be some degree of co-operation in the determination underlying the process of bringing Gibraltar back into Spanish territory. That remains of deep concern to the people of Gibraltar and none of the amendments—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will now address his remarks to the amendment.

William Cash: I understand your point, Madam Deputy Speaker, as I know that you understood mine, so I do not need to press the matter.
	Lords amendment No. 17 relates to clause 22. Again, I am happy to acknowledge that, as a result of representations that we made in Committee and on Report, the Government have moved towards our proposals. The people of Gibraltar do not have a direct voice in this House so, to a great extent, they have had to rely on Members of Parliament to make their case for them.

Henry Bellingham: Although the Bill is obviously a step in the right direction, does my hon. Friend agree that Gibraltar also needs at least one MP in this House?

William Cash: My hon. Friend makes an extremely valid point, with which many people will agree. If people have the right to elect a Member of the European Parliament, there seems no logical reason, given the territorial point that I have made repeatedly and by virtue of assimilation in the legislative process of the EU, not to recognise the fact that Gibraltar is affected by the legislation of the European Parliament so its people, too, should have representation in this House. I have no difficulty with that proposition. I do not know whether my hon. Friend is thinking of going over to Gibraltar; I am sure that, as the Member for North-West Norfolk he would be welcome, although I do not think he has it in mind to become the Member for Gibraltar—

John Bercow: Norfolk would revolt.

William Cash: Indeed, although I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) would also be a powerful advocate for Gibraltar.
	Although concessions have been made on clause 22, a difficulty remains: the extent of payments that the Gibraltarians would be expected to make was not entirely clear from the Minister's comments. Perhaps she could amplify that point when she replies to the debate.
	There was much concern and discussion of the fact that, in effect, the Gibraltarians were being instructed as to how they should deal with their own funds. Much of the heat has been taken out of that situation by the redrafting of the proposals, but it is not yet clear exactly how much the Gibraltarians would have to pay from their own funds. The provision is rather general as to that, so I should be grateful if the Minister could amplify her earlier remarks.
	On territoriality, in UK law a mixture of status plus residence in an electoral region is needed to create eligibility to vote. It has been suggested that, in the case of electors in Gibraltar, such residence would have to be in the territory of Gibraltar. I was given to understand that the requirement would be clear from Gibraltar's inclusion in the schedule listing the geographical parts of the relevant region.
	I can find no such reference in the Bill or the amendments, although I looked several times because I had been given to understand that that had been suggested. I had hoped that it would be set out, if not in the schedule to the Bill, certainly in the list of regions in clause 1, but I am afraid that I have not come across that, so I remain puzzled. Perhaps the Minister will refer to that issue as well. Those are the main points that I wished to make. We are partially satisfied; we are glad that there has been some movement in our direction, but, regrettably, not enough.

David Heath: It is a pleasure to return to the subject of Gibraltar and the inadequacies of the British Government in recognising the fact that Gibraltar is part of the territory of the European Union. As has been ascertained by the European Court of Justice, the European Parliament is responsible for part of Gibraltar's legislation, yet the people of Gibraltar have been denied enfranchisement. The Bill will finally correct that anomaly; indeed, it is worse than an anomaly, it is an affront to the people of Gibraltar, and the change is long overdue.
	In totality, I broadly support the amendments because, as the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) said, they represent a move in the right direction on a number of points, which he and I have put to the Minister on various occasions during the consideration of the Bill. However, I agree with him that the amendments do not by any means represent 100 per cent. of what we would have liked to be included in the legislation. Many hon. Members have been surprised at the lack of real consultation with the Government of Gibraltar and the failure to understand some of the points that they have made.
	I accept that, since we first raised the issue, there has been significant dialogue with the Government of Gibraltar, and the Minister was kind enough to send hon. Members a copy of the observations that the Government of Gibraltar sent to her Department on 27 January 2003, in a facsimile message from Mr. Ernest Montado, the chief secretary to the Government of Gibraltar. He raised two substantive points and seven separate points that he asked the Government to consider. Even more helpful was the fact that the Minister provided not only a copy of that transmission to me and, I presume, the hon. Member for Stone, but an addendum consisting of the ticks and observations that presumably civil servants or perhaps the Minister herself made to indicate support or otherwise for the position adopted by the Government of Gibraltar.
	First, the Government of Gibraltar raise the important point of the naming of the joint constituency, which I will not go into because it is outside the scope of these amendments. Lords amendment No. 4, which relates to clause 9, repeats the observation of the hon. Member for Stone that the reference to consultation with the Governor should be deleted. Interestingly, that was one of the references in the original message that was ticked as being okay. It obviously turned out to be not okay later, and I fail to understand why.
	The Governor is one of two things. First, he represents the Crown in Gibraltar, and it is entirely inappropriate that the Crown should be a consultee to what is essentially a political process. If one sets aside the fact that the Governor represents the Crown, the other thing that the Governor represents is the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, as an appointee of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. So we have the extraordinary position of the Government consulting their own appointee on legislation that they wish to introduce.

Andrew MacKinlay: The Governor is appointed without consultation.

David Heath: As the hon. Gentleman says, the Governor is appointed without consultation. Of course the Lord Chancellor is appointed without consultation, so the appointed Lord Chancellor discusses with the appointed Governor what should be the electoral arrangements for Gibraltar. I find that entirely inappropriate. Having said that, I cannot bring myself to vote against an amendment that will extend the consultation to the leader of each political party represented in the House of Assembly because that clearly improves the Bill.
	In Committee and on Report, I put the argument to the Minister that the consultation should include not just the Chief Minister, but the representatives of each political party in Gibraltar for the purposes of transparency and balance, so although Lords amendment No. 4 does not go far enough—the word "Governor" will not be deleted—it is welcome nevertheless.
	However, has the Minister seriously considered the fact that the Bill proposes consulting only on the electoral area in which Gibraltar will be placed, not on the electoral arrangements and those for registration and all the others matters that will pertain in Gibraltar following the Bill's enactment? It seems extraordinary that, when a similar Bill was introduced for the United Kingdom, consultation with the various political parties in this country was required, but that is not considered necessary for Gibraltar. The arrangements for political registration, registering gifts and donations and all the other points of electoral law with which we have become familiar will be determined by diktat. I ask the Minister to explain why that is the case in the context of Lords amendment No. 4.
	The second point that Mr. Montado made was in reference to clause 11, about which he said:
	"this can be achieved by Gibraltar legislation (or at least with parallel legislation)."
	Again, that point is ticked, but no amendment to clause 11 has been proposed; nor has one been proposed to clause 14, which was not quite given a tick—a question mark was put by Mr. Montado's suggestion that the provisions in clause 14 could be achieved by local legislation.
	We should applaud the provisions relating to the clerk to the House of Assembly being the returning officer. That was requested by the Government of Gibraltar, and I am grateful to the Government for acceding to that request.
	The Government of Gibraltar have made a further suggestion about clause 13(4), asking that the Government should consider adding the words,
	"any provision of this Ordinance which empowers the Lord Chancellor to prescribe . . . may with the Lord Chancellor's agreement be done by the legislature of Gibraltar".
	The hon. Member for Stone was making that point and, interestingly, the annotation made by the civil servant or the Minister was not only a tick, but the words, "Should have been in?" Well, that suggestion should have been in, but it turns out that it was not in, and it is still not in. That is an omission.
	I welcome the Lords amendments to clause 19 that separate references to the Government of Gibraltar from the references to a local council. Those references in the original text were quite extraordinary. I welcome the changes to the position of the court of Gibraltar. To an extent, I share the reservations of the hon. Member for Stone, as we are being asked to allow the court of Gibraltar to be involved in part of the procedure, but by no means all of it, although it relates to matters that affect people in Gibraltar. A better balance could have been reached, but nevertheless I am happy that the amendment has been included.
	The last point that I want to make relates to finances—a matter that we explored at length in Committee because a number of us, including the hon. Member for Stone and myself, thought it quite improper for legislation passed in the House to require the expenditure of funds from the Consolidated Fund for Gibraltar without any reference to the Government of Gibraltar. That expenditure would essentially be made by diktat, given that definite devolved powers were given to the Government of Gibraltar under previous legislation.
	It seemed to me that that was entirely wrong. The Government have now accepted that and have put it right with amendment No. 17, which I welcome. It is a pity that there was not a little more co-operation and dialogue in relation to what the Government intended and to what the Government of Gibraltar were clearly happy to accede—they are delighted with the prospect of enfranchisement for the people of Gibraltar and they want to co-operate in that regard—instead of the process that has been adopted.
	In sum, this group of amendments are welcome. They all move in the right direction, although some do not go far enough. I fear, however, that that is as good as we are going to get at this stage in the Bill's progress. I shall not recommend that my right hon. and hon. Friends vote against any of the amendments, as there are none with which I disagree; I would simply like a few more—[Interruption.] My right hon. and hon. Friends have all gone to win council seats—there are plenty around—as hon. Members will discover on Thursday.
	The Minister should have gone further. She should have listened earlier to the people of Gibraltar, and she should have acceded more fully to their requests. Clearly, however, the Bill is better as a result of these amendments than it was when it left the House of Commons, having been the subject of so many fruitless hours of discussion on points to which the Government did not accede.

John Redwood: It is typical of this Government that they did not consult properly in the first place and did not listen. Even now that they have consulted—after a fashion—the Minister was still unable when I intervened on her during her opening remarks to tell me whether the Government of Gibraltar were satisfied with the amendments. As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) pointed out, the Government of Gibraltar are clearly not entirely satisfied with the amendments. It is no wonder they are so unhappy: they have seen this Government do them down over the sensitive issue of sovereignty, in respect of which this Government ignored the strong advice from Gibraltar; we have seen them done down over the issue of taxation and tax status by being brought into a net to which they do not wish to belong in order to damage their economy; and this same Government who fail to stand up for Gibraltar are now not listening to it carefully enough in relation to these sensitive amendments. I hope that at this late stage the Minister will admit that she has not stood up for Gibraltar on these issues, and that she will reconsider the matter, as the amendments are not sufficient to meet the legitimate concerns of the people and Government of Gibraltar.

Yvette Cooper: I assume that the hon. Member—[Hon. Members: "Right hon."] I apologise. I assume that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) made his strong views clear to his right hon. and hon. Friends in the Government of whom he was a part before the 1997 general election, who supported the current constitutional position of Gibraltar and who failed to enfranchise the people of Gibraltar for the European parliamentary elections. I think that I also caught him saying—although I may have to check Hansard—that this Government were the first to stand up for Gibraltar. I think that those were the words that he used, and I thank him for those kind words.

John Redwood: I certainly did not intend to say that, and I trust that Hansard heard me correctly. I said that this Government have not stood up for Gibraltar, that they will not do so, and that the Minister has shown again tonight that she cannot do so.

Yvette Cooper: I am afraid that what I heard the right hon. Gentleman say, after complaining that previous Governments had not done enough for Gibraltar, was that this Government, who are the first to stand up for Gibraltar, have not gone as far as he would have chosen to. Clearly, he and the Hansard reporter will need to argue over the record this evening.
	I know that some hon. Members want to change the constitutional status, and this Bill does not do that. It has never pretended to do that, and it should not do that. It cannot resolve every constitutional debate that hon. Members want to have about Gibraltar and its future. The Bill is designed to give the people of Gibraltar the vote for the European Parliament. The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) referred to the issue of the name, which we have discussed in Committee, as he said, and we made it clear that it would be disproportionate to do as he suggests, given the numbers of people—

William Cash: Will the Minister give way?

Yvette Cooper: I will, although the point is not covered by the amendments that we are discussing.

William Cash: On the question of territoriality, the point remains important. In the 18th century, we had constituencies that were under the high water mark that still returned Members of Parliament. We now have electors who are allowed to elect people to the European Parliament, but, according to the Government, they are not entitled to any territorial claim. That sounds most odd.

Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman said, "I do not believe in constitutional theology." I will therefore refrain from getting into a debate with him about constitutional theology, and point out again that the constitutional status of Gibraltar is not a part of this Bill.
	The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) raised the issue of the Governor and consultation of the Governor. The Governor is listed as one of the consultees, which is an aspect of the current constitutional status of Gibraltar. The hon. Gentleman is right that this issue relates to the consultation by the Electoral Commission, and we maintained throughout the Committee stage that we are committed to consulting the Government of Gibraltar, exactly as we have done not simply throughout the passage of the Bill but prior to the Bill being laid before Parliament. We will continue to do so, and we will need to do so in relation to the detailed secondary legislation that will be required in time for the 2004 elections.

David Heath: It would be helpful, for the record, if the Minister were to set out her expectation that the Electoral Commission will also consult with parties other than the Government of Gibraltar on electoral registration, on donations to parties and on the range of issues that are not explicit in the Bill.

Yvette Cooper: The Electoral Commission has always set out that it will consult widely on all the issues for which it has responsibility, and has always done so. My experience of the Electoral Commission is that it is always keen to consult widely and to ensure that all its work is properly based on a wide and effective consultation.

John Bercow: With reference to subsection (2) of amendment No. 16, and the reference to the status of subordinate legislation, can the hon. Lady tell the House what is the direct application of clause 63 of the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865?

Yvette Cooper: I fear that I am supposed to have brought not only the treaty of Amsterdam but an entire constitutional history of the nation to be able to answer the hon. Gentleman's questions.
	The hon. Member for Stone referred to a series of issues about the courts and the role of the different courts as set out in the amendment. As I explained in Committee, the secondary legislation will provide in more detail for the way in which the courts will deal with particular issues that they consider. I am advised that the hon. Gentleman's proposal with regard to the election court is not possible. I am keen, however, to consider the issues and questions that he has raised to determine whether, as we set out the detail in secondary legislation, we can accommodate further concerns that he has not had the chance to raise.

John Bercow: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Yvette Cooper: I will deal with these points first.
	The hon. Member for Stone and several other hon. Members raised the issue of allowing secondary legislation to be made in Gibraltar whenever possible. Throughout the Committee stage we maintained that such legislation should be made in Gibraltar wherever possible. However, we are constrained by the fact that in many cases the legislation will need to apply not only to Gibraltar but to the combined region as a whole, so it can be made only by the UK Parliament. The legal position, therefore, means that many legislative changes will need to be made in this place, although we have always said that we will consult the Government of Gibraltar.

David Heath: Will the Minister give way?

Yvette Cooper: I will, but I have other points to answer.

David Heath: We have plenty of time, so the hon. Lady need not be too concerned. Does she not accept that there are many instances in which parallel legislation has to be introduced in both this Parliament and the Scottish Parliament to achieve the same objectives, and that does not prove to be an obstacle to the proper administration of law in this country? There is no particular reason why Gibraltar could not have introduced parallel legislation to bring its electoral arrangements into accord with those in the UK, while maintaining the principle that Gibraltarian law is made in Gibraltar, not in this House.

Yvette Cooper: That may prove to be the case in some legislative areas. We had a detailed discussion about that in Committee, and I do not want to return to that now. It will be possible for Gibraltar to introduce further legislation in certain areas, and we are certainly happy to support that, but in other areas the legal position will mean that as Gibraltar operates as part of the combined region, legislative changes will need to be made in this House. We have made great efforts to accommodate the concerns of the Government of Gibraltar on this issue, but the legal position means that we simply cannot do so entirely.
	On amendment No. 17, the hon. Member for Stone asked for clarification about the UK Consolidated Fund and asked who would pay for what. The fund will pay for the Gibraltar returning officer's expenses for conducting the election in Gibraltar. That will represent the bulk of the expenditure at the election. That leaves the Government of Gibraltar to pay for the expenses of the Gibraltar-European registration officer. Effectively, then, the registration process will be paid for by the Government of Gibraltar, in an arrangement parallel to those for elections to local authorities throughout this country. The Government of Gibraltar have indicated that they are content with that.

John Bercow: Will the Minister give way?

Yvette Cooper: I cannot resist the opportunity to give the hon. Gentleman the chance to entertain us.

John Bercow: I am delighted, because I have always paid homage to the hon. Lady as the intellectual hotshot and rising star in the new Labour firmament. Before she goes rushing helter-skelter on to the gravamen of amendment No. 17, I want her to explain the proper application of clause 63 of the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 in amendment No. 16, the parentage of which is hers, not ours.

Yvette Cooper: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman would like to give the House the opportunity to debate in great detail the constitutional history of Gibraltar and its relationship with this country, but that is not relevant to the Bill.
	The new clause in amendment No. 16 confirms that the Bill does not remove the power of the Gibraltar legislature to make legislation that is not contrary to the provisions made by or under the Bill. Hence the reference to the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865, which provides that any colonial law, which would include law made by Gibraltar, is void to the extent that it is contrary to law made by or under a UK Act of Parliament in relation to that colony, which includes Gibraltar. Accordingly, the amendment does not affect the Lord Chancellor's powers to make provision in exercise of his powers under the Bill. I trust that the hon. Gentleman is suitably enlightened and that if he has any further concerns he will conduct his own research into the Colonial Laws Validity Act. I am sure that he will not only write to me but entertain the House with his views on various historical provisions.
	Finally, the hon. Member for Wokingham—[Interruption.] I keep forgetting that he is the right hon. Member for Wokingham. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the views of the Government of Gibraltar, and I said that I would read to the House the letter that the Chief Secretary wrote to the Lord Chancellor's Department. It said:
	"Thank you for your letter of the 25 March 2003 explaining further the approach which you have adopted in addressing our concerns.
	We acknowledge that you have done your best to accommodate us within the constraints of your own position on the issues raised. I can assure you that we will, of course, continue to work together on the detail of the legislation that may be required to complete all the necessary arrangements for Gibraltar's inclusion in the 2004 elections for the European Parliament."
	I have responded to hon. Members' points, and I hope now that Conservative Members will now feel able to support the amendments, which were welcomed by Conservative Members of the Lords. Indeed, Baroness Rawlings, who led for the Conservatives on the Bill, said at the conclusion of the debates:
	"The Bill is very good news for the people of Gibraltar. We wish it well."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 April 2003; Vol. 647, c. 14.]
	I hope that hon. Members in this House will adopt the same point of view and vote in support of the amendments.

Question put, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment:—
	The House divided: Ayes 280, Noes 113.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 12
	 — 
	Sections 10 And 11: Supplementary

Lords amendment: No. 5.

Yvette Cooper: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 6, 7, 9, 10 and 13.

Yvette Cooper: This group of amendments is inspired by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which recommended in its 11th report that the delegated powers in part 2 should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. In his response to the Committee, the Lord Chancellor accepted its recommendation. He said that he would table amendments, and amendments Nos. 5 to 7 and 10 and 13 are intended to achieve this purpose.
	The amendments apply to the delegated powers under clauses 12, 17 and 20. They require the Lord Chancellor to use either an affirmative procedure, whereby a draft is laid and may not come into force until parliamentary debates have been held, or, in urgent cases, an alternative but well-established affirmative procedure whereby the debates may be held within 40 parliamentary sitting days after the instrument has been made.
	The procedure recognises the concerns that have been expressed that detailed secondary legislation should receive the scrutiny of both Houses, and the Government's concern that we should not find ourselves in a position where, because of timetabling difficulties, we will not be able to put the final details in place to enable all parties concerned to prepare properly for the elections in June 2004. As we set out in Committee, there are time constraints, given the imminence of the 2004 elections and the immense amount of work that will have to be done. The Government of Gibraltar must be consulted on some of the practical details to ensure that the application of UK electoral law to Gibraltar for the European Parliament elections can work properly. We are also required to consult the Electoral Commission as the independent body that can give an authoritative view on what is proposed. There is a tight timetable and a great deal of work must be done.
	Our firm intention is to use the affirmative procedure wherever possible. We have stated that we intend to combine, where possible, the making of as much as possible of the legislation with the general European Parliament regulations, which we would in any case be preparing in advance of next year's elections. The amendments set out the possible situation where for "reasons of urgency" there may be some cases where we have to opt for the delayed affirmative procedure. We must ensure that, in the run-up to the 2004 elections, we are not unable to provide appropriate information to those who need to conduct the elections.

John Bercow: I am sure that the Minister will agree with the general proposition that these important matters must not be discussed in the abstract. To lend some verisimilitude to the argument that she is advancing in support of subsection (5B), can she depict for the House a practical example of the circumstances in which that subsection would be suitably applied?

Yvette Cooper: The difficulty that we have with election law is its complexity. Sometimes concerns can arise at a relatively late stage that need to be addressed. Such concerns might not have been anticipated. That is the nature of the detailed legislation that we are addressing. If we were able to anticipate problems that might arise at a late stage, we would be able to resolve them early on and take them through the normal affirmative procedure. It is important that we have a fall-back position should problems arise at a late stage in the process, perhaps through consultation with the Electoral Commission or through consultations with the Government of Gibraltar.
	We are considering a procedure that has been used before. For example, section 85 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 provided for the use of the delayed affirmative procedure where reasons of urgency were involved. The procedure has been invoked in other Acts.
	We are in an unusual situation. The 2004 elections are looming. That is effectively the deadline. It is the time when the Bill needs to be in place so that the elections can be conducted properly. It is therefore appropriate that the delayed affirmative procedure is in place. However, as we have always said, we are keen to ensure that the process can be used, wherever possible, alongside the European Parliament regulations. It would therefore go through the affirmative procedure anyway.

William Cash: It is always interesting to hear the Minister responding to the representations that have been made to her from whatever quarter. She has a slight tendency not to want to give the impression that she is giving anything away. There is a bottom line to the way in which she puts her concessions to bed, as it were. The reality is that the Government were forced into this position. They do not want to tangle with the distinguished Committee in the House of Lords that deals with regulatory reform. A list of the Members in question would perhaps indicate the extent to which the Government are determined not to fall out with them. The members of the Committee are distinguished in their own right.
	There is always the suggestion, however, that when the matter comes back to the House there will be deference to the House of Lords, but grudging acquiescence in any political concession that might be made to the Opposition or to the opposition of the Liberal Democrats. That has been a consistent theme. It is rather regrettable because, as has already been said, the purpose of parliamentary procedure is to ensure that there is a proper debate. Provided that the points are well made, it does not matter where they come from. The concession should be made with good grace and it should not have to be wrung out of the Minister in question. In this instance, I have to say that that usually has to be done.
	I am not at all convinced by the arguments that the Minister has advanced about urgency in relation to the timetable and about the Lord Chancellor retaining the power to be able to make the order without approval in draft. I would like the Minister to tell me whether that was agreed by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the House of Lords. Has the hon. Lady conceded in principle that all the orders should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure? In earlier proceedings in this place I tabled a stack of amendments that had the effect of insisting that these matters should be dealt with through the affirmative procedure.
	Notes have just arrived from a certain quarter that may help to elucidate the Minister's answer to my question. The analogy that she made with Northern Ireland legislation does not bode well for the degree of urgency that is dealt with in the Bill. The Bill provides a procedural timetable, whereas in respect of Northern Ireland the problem is more prolonged and vexatious and is usually associated with some emergency or other. I should be rather surprised if a proper analogy could be made with the precedent in Northern Ireland legislation or in relation to Orders in Council affecting Northern Ireland. No doubt the hon. Lady will explain that when she replies.
	A further point arises under clause 12, to which amendment No. 5 refers. Subsection (8) contains a rather peculiar provision, which states:
	"If, apart from this subsection, an order to which this section applies would be treated for the purposes of the standing orders of either House of Parliament as a hybrid instrument, it shall proceed as if it were not such an instrument."
	The drafting is questionable, not least because I think I am right in saying that in the House of Commons there is no equivalent to the treatment of an order as a hybrid instrument in the House of Lords. In the House of Commons, there are procedures in respect of the Clerks of Private Bills and there are special procedures in respect of the examiners of Bills as to whether a Bill is hybrid or not. There is a different procedure in the House of Lords. I believe that the drafting of the Bill is defective, as there is no parallel between the two Houses in respect of hybridity.
	That is a drafting question. The essential question, which lies at the heart of my concerns, is the provision whereby an order to which the section applies would be treated for the purposes of the Standing Orders as a hybrid instrument. In such circumstances, it is treated as though it were not such an instrument. It is astonishing that the Government can use a Bill to ride roughshod over the Standing Orders of Parliament. They are saying that it does not matter a hang whether an instrument is a hybrid instrument or not.
	Procedures that were built up over two centuries or more have been used to safeguard the rights of the subject with respect to a hybrid Bill or hybrid instrument—that is, in a nutshell, where there is a class affected by an order or a Bill, and the members of that class are treated differently in relation to their specific private interests. Where that arises and there is a difference within that group or class, the Bill is declared to be hybrid. For practical purposes—here is the rub—the Bill must be referred to petitions and the Select Committee procedure with leading counsel and all the rest of it.
	I can understand that the Government might be nervous about such a matter. Indeed, I was the legal adviser on the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill in 1977, when we proved hybridity in the Bill. The flagship Bill disintegrated in a puff of smoke and the Government fell. [Interruption.] The Government Deputy Chief Whip says that that was two years later. It was a chain reaction.
	Hybridity is an essential part of the procedures and safeguards for the subject that have built up over many years. I see the copy of "Erskine May" on the Table. Pages and pages of it are devoted to this special subject. However, along comes the Minister and introduces a clause that states that were such a situation to arise in respect of Gibraltar, and the inconvenience of the Standing Orders of either House of Parliament produced a hybrid instrument or provision, it will no longer be regarded as such.
	That raises a serious question, because I doubt whether it is proper constitutional practice for Acts of Parliament to override what you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Mr. Speaker or Parliament have decided to be an applicable Standing Order. That is a dangerous path for the Government to take and the Minister stands accountable to answer for it.
	I am extremely worried—as I imagine you are, Mr. Deputy Speaker—that Acts of Parliament could override Standing Orders. One could think of almost any Standing Order offhand that could be overridden simply by an Act. That could relate to the Consolidated Fund or whether the privileges of the House had been breached. The Government could override Standing Orders by using their large majority to provide that they would no longer apply or not apply in a specific context. I hope that you would regard that as a matter of gravity and take soundings on it, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that you will be good enough to note what I say and perhaps let me have your view on the extent to which the unprecedented provision is in the framework of the constitutional treatment of Standing Orders.
	I am effectively making a point of order, but the irony is that I do not have to make a point of order because I am talking about the Bill. That is pretty odd and I would be grateful if a person in your Office, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or one of the Clerks would tell me the extent to which the provision is precedented. However, we need not divide the House on the matter. It is important but it can be allowed to mature through correspondence in due course. It will be interesting to hear the Minister's reply, and perhaps her advisers will give her a note so that we may have further elucidation.

David Heath: One could reach two assumptions: either the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has taken careful cognisance of remarks made in Committee and on Report and has been persuaded by the arguments of the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) and me, or the points that we made were so self-evidently correct that it could do nothing but agree. Whichever is true, we are glad that it made its recommendations and that the Lord Chancellor has acceded to them.
	I was simply going to concur with the hon. Gentleman's sentiments and the Lords amendments, but he made a small peroration on hybridity. I was desperately worried that he would be out of order by doing that because the amendments do not relate to it. However, I realised, as you would, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that clause 12(8) qualifies the rest of the clause and therefore qualifies the amendments that we are debating. The hon. Gentleman was clearly in order to express his concerns about the Humpty-Dumpty provision in subsection (8) that will allow the Government to decide what any word shall mean. If they choose to decide that a word means the opposite of what it clearly does mean, they will legislate for it to mean the opposite. That is the purport of subsection (8).

William Cash: The hon. Gentleman will recall, having echoed "Through the Looking-Glass", that the final phrase following the question about the meaning of words is
	"which is to be master—that's all."

David Heath: Indeed; who are the masters now?
	I do not wish to pursue that line of debate any further except to say that it raises questions about the procedures of this place. I do not think that the Government have successfully dealt with the salient points raised by the hon. Member for Stone. However, they are not the subject of the amendments, with which we agree and which we asked for in Committee, although they were apparently tabled as a result of the intervention of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and not as a result of any arguments from our good selves that may have struck home. None the less, we must modestly accept the procedure by which we have achieved our result and welcome the amendments.

Yvette Cooper: I should like to deal first with the points made by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) about hybridity, which we discussed previously in the House. He pressed to a Division amendments relating to the issue, but they were not accepted. The issue is not the subject of the amendments before us and was not raised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about precedents. Section 26 of the Local Government Act 1992 is a precedent and contains a similar measure. Clearly, he did not manage to do to that measure what he managed to do to the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977, although I guess that it was not for want of trying to sabotage his Government's measures in one way or another at that time.
	Hon. Members asked further questions about the delayed procedure. One aspect of the procedure is that it would allow orders to be made during a recess when there is an important need for electoral administrators or others to get on with the work in question. Parliament would then debate the matter afterwards.
	The provisions are sensible measures that allow us to do what many hon. Members and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee have asked for and give greater parliamentary scrutiny to the issues involved. They also ensure that we can meet the timetable. We need to do so to ensure that those who live in Gibraltar can vote in the European parliamentary elections in June next year.
	I welcome what I think was support for the amendments from the hon. Member for Stone, as well as the support of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). I assume that the hon. Member for Stone is still planning to vote against them, as he has previously argued that orders should be more clearly limited to treaty provisions and to debates in the House, but then proceeded to vote against provisions that achieve exactly that. He has also argued that we should conduct more consultation with the Government of Gibraltar and do more to address and respond to their concerns, but he voted this afternoon against provisions that do exactly that. I presume that the fact that he expressed support for the amendments means that he will proceed to vote against them.

William Cash: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Yvette Cooper: I shall give the hon. Gentleman one last chance to clarify his position.

William Cash: The issue is very simple. The Government have moved somewhat in our direction under the intense pressure that we exerted both in Committee and on Report, and also thanks to our noble Friends in the House of Lords. We have made progress, and Liberal Democrat Members have also contributed to the pressures exerted on the Government in that respect, as have the Chief Minister and others in Gibraltar who have played such a magnificent part in the proceedings. However, this has been only a partial success and it is not over yet by a long way.

Yvette Cooper: One has to question the logic of the hon. Gentleman's position if he can describe an amendment as progress, then choose to vote against it to try to defeat it. Presumably he would rather we ditch all the so-called progress and return to the Bill as it was when it left this place, despite his anxieties about it at that time. I know that he is always keen to vote against progress whenever he can, but I urge him not to vote against the progress made in this final group of amendments. I ask him to join hon. Members from other parties to ensure that the whole House supports not only the amendments, but the whole Bill. It is a good Bill that extends democracy, and it is right that we should wish it well so as not only to include the accession states in the 2004 elections, but to extend the franchise to the people of Gibraltar.
	Lords amendment agreed to.
	Lords amendments Nos. 6 to 14, 15 and Government amendment (a) thereto agreed to.
	Lords amendments Nos. 16 to 20 agreed to [one with Special Entry].

National Minimum Wage (Enforcement Notices) Bill [Lords]

As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
	Order for Third Reading read.

Stephen Timms: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	On behalf of my hon. Friend the Minister for Employment Relations, Industry and the Regions, I thank all those who have taken part in the debates in the House and in the other place since last November. The Bill is small but complex, and has received much all-party support, for which I am grateful. I am sure that the many former workers who stand to benefit from the measure are grateful for the support that has been expressed in the House and in another place.
	My hon. Friend dealt with the detail and the technical issues on Second Reading. I do not propose to cover them again. The network of 16 enforcement teams throughout the United Kingdom, operated by the Inland Revenue, will be able to carry on as they did before the Bebb Travel case arose, and thus resume helping some of the most vulnerable workers to obtain their legal entitlement under the minimum wage. As hon. Members know, the Court of Appeal heard the Inland Revenue's appeal in the Bebb Travel case on 24 March. It agreed with the Employment Appeal Tribunal and ruled against the Inland Revenue. It is just as well that we did not depend on the appeal. We want to close the loophole in the way that every hon. Member supports through the Bill.
	I emphasise the importance of the measure, in case there are lingering doubts. It is an important part of the Government's employment relations strategy, which aims to promote partnership, encourage greater adaptability and provide good minimum standards of fairness at work for all. The minimum wage is firmly established as a feature of the United Kingdom labour market.

John Bercow: Given that the logic of the existence of the minimum wage is that it will be periodically and affordably increased, and that the effect of the increase that the Government recently announced to take effect in October should be to help some of the most vulnerable people in our society, how does the Minister intend to ensure maximum dissemination of information about the increase to businesses? That would ensure that the maximum number of businesses complied with the law and did not render themselves liable to an enforcement notice under the Bill.

Stephen Timms: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I agree with him about the desirable impact of the increase in the minimum wage, which has been announced, and I am grateful for the terms in which he expressed that. Experience shows that the mechanisms that we have used to disseminate changes in the rate proved effective. The Inland Revenue's enforcement role, apart from in the circumstance that the Bill covers, has proved effective. If the hon. Gentleman believes that there are gaps or weaknesses in the arrangements that he wants to draw to my attention, I shall ensure that officials consider them. It is vital that the information be widely known by employers and employees, to achieve the maximum benefit from the change.
	The hon. Gentleman's point gives me the opportunity to celebrate the way in which the minimum wage is a firmly established feature of the UK labour market. Its benefits are widely recognised and it has been successful.
	The Bill fits the Government's framework and sends an important signal. It is the first time we have had to amend the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 because of a court case. We will do that again if the need arises in order to protect the interests of low-paid and often vulnerable groups of workers. Any minimum wage system has to have effective enforcement provisions. The powers in the Bill will be critical in helping the most vulnerable to secure their rights. They will also indirectly assist responsible employers—the vast majority—who must be free from the fear that a competitor will undercut them.
	Again, I welcome the wide support for the Bill, and I commend it to the House.

Henry Bellingham: First, I declare my interests, which are in the Register of Members' Interests. I thank the Minister for warning me that the Minister for Employment Relations, Industry and the Regions could not be here tonight. I understand that he has had to fly to Taiwan via Bangkok, where he will be batting for Rolls-Royce in an important bid for engine replacements. We wish him well in that task and fully understand and accept why he is not here this evening. I understand that he would have been able to fly direct to Taiwan had it not been for the severe acute respiratory syndrome crisis.
	I am impressed that the Minister has been able to read himself into the Bill so quickly. As he pointed out, the Opposition have supported this small but important Bill. He referred to the decision in the case of Inland Revenue v. Bebb Travel plc in which Judge J.R. Reid QC—I do not know whether he is any relation to the Leader of the House; perhaps he is the Leader of the House—came up with a bizarre ruling. He held that enforcement officers can issue enforcement notices requiring the employer to pay the minimum wage only in respect of current and future pay periods or in respect of current, future and past pay periods. Enforcement officers cannot issue notices for past periods alone, therefore. As the Minister pointed out, that ruling was upheld on appeal two weeks ago.
	Bebb Travel had 25 employees who were receiving less than the minimum wage and there were pay arrears of £37,649. The enforcement notice was dated October 2000, but the 25 were dismissed in May 2000, and so were past employees.
	Obviously, it was the intention of the House that the legislation should address the interests of such employees. Therefore this evening we are restoring the position to what everyone believed it was before the Bebb Travel case. As the Minister pointed out, the Bill has widespread support. It is supported by the CBI and the TUC.
	The Government are appealing against the decision by Judge J.R. Reid QC. In Committee, the Minister said that he would continue with the appeal, if necessary to the House of Lords, because he felt that it was wrong to prejudge Parliament. We all respect the Government's sensitivity in this. It would be an arrogant Government who said that they would drop the appeal because they knew that the Bill would go through. They have adopted a sensitive position towards Parliament and they are not making any assumptions. However, with the Opposition's support, there is no reason why the Bill cannot go through quickly.
	The argument put on Second Reading and in Committee was that the Government would go ahead with the full appeal process because to withdraw at this stage would mean the Government paying the costs of Bebb Travel. Here we have a rogue employer and it would be wrong if the taxpayer had to pick up its costs.
	What is the Government's position at the moment? If the Court of Appeal gives them leave, will they go to the House of Lords, or will they withdraw the appeal? If they do withdraw the appeal, will they have to pay the costs of Bebb Travel? I assume that they will have to. How much has the case cost the Government, and was it, with hindsight, the right decision to launch the appeal against the Employment Appeal Tribunal in the first case? I appreciate that the Minister is not fully up to speed on the Bill, and I sympathise, but if he does not have the answers tonight perhaps he could drop me a note on this.
	We are dealing here with a serious drafting error. One could have concluded that the Employment Appeal Tribunal judge was over-zealous and would be easily overturned in the Court of Appeal, but the Minister kindly let me have the Court of Appeal's judgment before tonight's debate, and it is obvious from that that the judges took the view that there was a serious drafting error.
	Is this perhaps a consequence of the growing problem of the lack of scrutiny in this place? More and more Bills are going on to another place without proper scrutiny, and intolerable pressure is being put on another place for that reason.
	We must learn the lessons of this débâcle, because the Bill is going to cost the taxpayer a substantial amount of money. I do not know what it costs to take a mini-Bill through Parliament, but it must cost a substantial number of thousands of pounds. I would be grateful if we could be told how much this has cost. We must learn from this, because a mistake has been made. It has been corrected, and we are all happy to correct it, but why was it made in the first place? We do not want the Bill to become an Act and then to pass away without this lesson being learned. Another cost arises in the form of the cost to the employees who are affected by this issue. The Inland Revenue told us back in February that 250 former employees had had their cases put on hold because of the Bebb Travel case. Will the Minister tell us how many more have been added to that figure since then?
	Most Bills come into effect two months after receiving Royal Assent. For that reason, the 250-plus former employees whom I have just mentioned are going to have to wait another two months anyway. There might then be further delays in the court system, as this could run on into the summer vacation. It is therefore possible that quite a few of those former employees will not get their cases on until well into the autumn.

Mark Hoban: Is my hon. Friend aware that some of the outstanding enforcement notices relate to pieceworkers and outworkers whose liability is difficult to calculate? One estimate that I have heard is that it will take five man-years for the Inland Revenue to calculate the amount that might be due to the employees of a firm in my constituency.

Henry Bellingham: That is extremely interesting. My hon. Friend makes the point that this is a complicated matter, and enforcement officers from the Inland Revenue and from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are working extremely hard on preparing these cases. The cases have been put on hold, however, and the employees in question might not get their cases on until well into the autumn. There could also be deferred judgments. We therefore need to look carefully at the two-month rule.
	The two-month rule delays the implementation of a Bill by two months after it has received Royal Assent to enable all the interested parties to make the necessary arrangements and adjustments. We are, however, talking here about an Act—the original Act—with which every interested party is already completely up to speed. This small Bill is going to become an Act, but everyone knows where they stand. I therefore suggest to the Minister that there can be no pressing reasons for the Bill not to be brought in immediately. It is unique, and there is every argument for it to be implemented at once.
	The Opposition have had a look at a number of Bills that have been enforced immediately in recent years. The Northern Ireland (Elections) Act 1998 was enforced immediately, as was the Education Act 2002, the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, the Armed Forces Act 2000 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000. I understand that an investigation was carried out in 1979—I realise that that was some time ago and that Governments of all hues have changed their practices since then—when a working party from the Statute Law Society looked at 105 Acts passed in the 14 months between 1 January 1978 and April 1979 to ascertain when they had come into force. It was found that 41 Acts came into effect on the exact date on which they were passed, that only 12 came into force on a date specified in the Act, and that 14 came into force after the expiry of the two-month period.
	We are talking about a very vulnerable group of employees, and it is in everyone's interest that they should get their cases on as soon as possible.
	Is there any reason why the Bill cannot be implemented as soon as possible once it has received Royal Assent, preferably in a matter of days? I am sure that is supported by Labour Back Benchers. Everyone knows where they stand. We have discussed this matter with various employer organisations, and they are in full agreement that there are no complications.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), who is not in his seat at the moment, raised a point about interest on outstanding amounts of wage that are due. These vulnerable employees have been waiting a long time. Through no fault of their own, their cases could not be dealt with because of the Bebb Travel case. In these exceptional circumstances, is there an argument that interest should be paid? After all, the Bebb Travel case involved a total sum of £37,000, and I imagine that quite a lot of interest would have accrued on that amount. Those employees were dismissed by Bebb Travel in May 2000, and they deserve to receive interest on that money. Perhaps the Minister will consider that.
	On Second Reading and in Committee we referred to the debate in the other place about how many years one should be able to go back to take a claim through the county court. The statute of limitations applies to the county court, so there is a six-year limit. However, although most cases go through the county court, some go through the employment tribunal system, including that of Bebb Travel. Unless one brings a case to an employment tribunal within three months of the discovery of the underpayment, the case cannot be brought. That is why most cases are brought in the county court.
	Until an amendment was made in the other place, there was no limitation on how far back one could go in a case before the employment tribunal. In theory, one could go back eight, nine, 10 or 12 years. In the other place, the Government graciously accepted an amendment whereby if a case is brought to the employment tribunal by enforcement officers, the six-year limit applies as in the county court. However, if an individual employee brings a case to the employment tribunal, he can go back as far as he wants. That is academic, because the original Act came in only a few years ago, so the statute of limitations is not relevant. If we fast forward 10 years or so, individual employees who bring cases in the county court and in the employment tribunal will be able to go back more than six years.
	Companies are obliged by company law to keep records going back only three years, however. There is nothing in this legislation to ensure that companies keep wage records for more than three years. That counts as a normal company record. The Minister's Department could send out guidance to companies. After all, it is always bombarding them with useless information. It would be helpful if a guidance note went out to employers, perhaps from the Inland Revenue, advising them that, given the six-year limit in the county court and the current legislation that applies the six-year limit to employment tribunals, they should keep wage records going back at least six years.
	I do not know whether the Minister can comment on that. Conservative Members are keen to reduce the burdens on business. If companies were guided in the right direction, it could save an awful lot of extra management time later on.

Bill Tynan: The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case for records to be kept for six years in relation to the minimum wage. Would he also argue that companies should be obliged to keep records to protect their employees in similar circumstances?

Henry Bellingham: That is certainly a strong point. Individual employees have always been able to take cases involving contractual disputes of beyond six years—in fact, they can cover an unlimited period—to an employment tribunal. Of course, the reason why very few of those cases go back much further is the lack of records. It is very difficult for an employee to prove that a contract has been broken when the records have long since been lost.
	My other point—perhaps the Government will look at this as well—is that a case cannot be brought before a tribunal unless it is brought within three months of the complaint being discovered or the underpayment taking place. That is another issue that the Minister could have a look at.
	We support this small Bill and have made it clear that we support the national minimum wage. We voted against the national minimum wage in the last Parliament because we were genuinely fearful of its effect on jobs, which was the prevailing view of the CBI and the Institute of Directors. For many years until some five or six years ago, a lot of people in the TUC also took a fairly critical view of a minimum wage policy. Over the past five years, however, we have enjoyed a very strong labour market in this country. The national minimum wage has yet to be tested in a sustained economic downturn, so the jury is obviously out on that point so far as the future is concerned. None the less, we support the national minimum wage and we will support it as part of our policy at the next election. If we form the next Government, we certainly do not intend to abolish it, and that is also why we support the Bill this evening.

Vincent Cable: I shall speak briefly because as the Conservative spokesman, the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham), has just said, the Bill is uncontroversial, has received multi-party support at each stage, is supported by both sides of industry and has not been subject to any contentious amendments. We are therefore fully behind it.
	It is unfortunate that the Government had to introduce new legislation, but since nobody picked up the legal anomaly identified in the case, I doubt whether there is any opportunity for recrimination; the point was simply missed and has now been rectified. Although the Bill is small it is important, because after a few years probably thousands of people will have accumulated retrospective arrears in respect of the minimum wage. They are precisely the people who, because they are frightened of their employers and of retaliation if they push for arrears, will have accumulated substantial sums. It is therefore very important that the anomaly be put right and that the legal powers and the enforcement procedures should exist. So we fully support what is taking place.
	The question of for how long a retrospective claim should be allowed, which was the final point raised by the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk, is the only hint of controversy in the Bill. At various points, he argued for a period of three years to align the legislation with the period for which companies keep records. In some cases, very diligent employees will have kept their records for longer than three years, and he argued that an unfair disadvantage for the employer would be created in such cases. The Government were right to insist that the period should be longer. When we debated that issue, I expressed the view that I could not see why there should be an upper limit even of six years, but I accept that we have reached a compromise and I am perfectly happy with what has been agreed.
	In conclusion, I follow the Minister and the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk in reiterating my support and that of my hon. Friends for the minimum wage, for the way in which it has been operated on the advice of the Low Pay Commission, and particularly for the way in which the recent increase has been advanced on the basis of advice from the LPC. I emphasise that point because I have achieved a certain notoriety in some of the Labour equivalents of our "Focus" newsletters. Perhaps because the Labour newsletters do not have the same commitment to scholarship and scrupulous accuracy as our "Focus" newsletters, they somehow tried to pretend that my hon. Friends and I were opposed to the minimum wage and to the recent increase. That is simply not the case.
	It was perfectly legitimate to warn that it would have been wrong of the Government to press for a binding two-year increase in the light of economic uncertainty. As I understand it, however, they have agreed to the follow the LPC's advice to proceed with a two-year increase, with a break after one year for the LPC to re-examine the economic data. They have agreed to proceed on that basis, and we are perfectly content with the way in which the matter has been dealt with. We support the minimum wage and the way in which it has been implemented, and we support the Bill.

Annabelle Ewing: I rise to support the Bill on behalf of the Scottish National party. I had the pleasure of sitting in Committee, albeit briefly, and I was pleased to note the consensus to ensure that the Bill passed speedily through the procedures of the House. As the Minister said, the Bill is brief but important. Following the unsuccessful appeal by the Inland Revenue against the Employment Appeal Tribunal decision, the legislation was necessary to close the loophole in respect of past periods of employment, particularly when the worker is no longer employed by the relevant employer. It was obviously not the intention of supporters of the original legislation to exclude such workers from the important protection of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. I welcome Third Reading and I hope that the Bill will shortly be on the statute book and speedily implemented thereafter.
	On the agricultural minimum wage, I am pleased that the Scottish Parliament will be left to legislate in that area on the basis that agriculture is a devolved matter. It is right and proper that Scotland should deal with its own devolved legislation, and it is a pity that it does not happen more often.

John Robertson: It is interesting to hear how important the Bill is to Scotland, particularly in respect of agriculture. Would it not have been better if the hon. Lady's former colleagues had turned up to vote for the minimum wage in the first place?

Annabelle Ewing: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should read Hansard, the official record of the House. If he did, he would find that the SNP supported and voted in favour of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. Indeed, the SNP also played an active role in the Committee that considered the Bill and was the only party that sought to speak in the debate on Lords amendments to it. If the hon. Gentleman read Hansard rather than Labour press releases, he might be better informed.
	In conclusion, I am happy to reiterate the Scottish National party's support for the original legislation and the present Bill. As I said, I look forward to its speedy implementation.

Mark Hoban: I should like briefly to discuss the position of a company in my constituency that will be directly affected by the Bill. The company is called Industrial Rubber and since February 1990 it has sought to comply with minimum wage provisions relating to outworkers. The Government recognise that it is a difficult area to comply with and have produced a consultation document to seek ways to improve the process so that companies and employees can benefit more clearly from national minimum wage regulation.
	Outworkers are paid under a fair estimate agreement. Industrial Rubber has tried to implement that agreement as best it can in the circumstances in which it operates. The company went to an employment tribunal, but, as a consequence of losing its case on two points, it now awaits—and has been waiting for six months since the tribunal first met—an enforcement notice. The expectation is that when the Bill is passed, it will receive the enforcement notice, because it will relate to several employees who no longer work for the company.
	The company first introduced a fair estimate agreement in February 2000. It believed that, because it worked alongside Inland Revenue, the agreement was compliant with the regulations under regulation 25 of the National Minimum Wage Regulations 1999. However, it transpired that it was not. When advised by Inland Revenue to that effect, the company tried to work with the Revenue to refine the agreement to make it compliant with the regulations in order to avoid having to go to a tribunal and to avoid receiving an enforcement notice.
	However, the process is ongoing and that is not satisfactory either for the company or its employees.
	In January 2003, following the employment tribunal, the company thought that the Inland Revenue had agreed that its current fair estimate agreement was workable and compliant with the Act. Only a month later, however, the Inland Revenue changed its mind and said that the agreement was no longer compliant. Industrial Rubber had to go back to drawing board to try to amend the estimate agreement to bring it into compliance with the regulations.
	I am sure that hon. Members would agree that, if the regulations were straightforward, it would be remiss of the company to fail to comply with them. However, as the Government's consultation document suggests, that is not the case. The document states:
	"The Government has received representations from both homeworker employers and homeworker representatives arguing that fair estimate agreements are not working well. It appears that few employers are actually making use of these agreements."
	Having heard about Industrial Rubber's experience of trying to comply with the agreement, I can understand why. The document continues:
	"A variety of reasons have been given for this but the principal point seems to be that they are seen as complex and difficult to administer, and that in practice it may be difficult to predict the estimated hours for each block or tranche of work taken on by an individual homeworker from week to week."
	That has been a problem for the company in my constituency. It works on short lead times for products. Orders are unpredictable, so the company does not know from one week to the next what products the outworkers will have to process.
	Given that the Government, home workers, home workers' representatives and home workers' employers all realise that the schemes are difficult to implement, it is disappointing that the Inland Revenue cannot give proper clearance of fair estimate agreements so that both home workers and their employers can have some certainty that their agreements comply with the law, thus ensuring that they are not brought before an employment tribunal and that no enforcement notices are levied on them. Sadly, however, the Inland Revenue will not give that clearance for fair estimate agreements, although it does so before major transactions for large companies. There is thus uncertainty both for employees and employers as to whether a fair rate is being paid for the work.
	A particular problem for the company to which I have referred is estimating the amount of compensation that might be payable to home workers under the Bill. Neither the company nor the workers have adequate records that would enable them to fill the gaps. In an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham), I pointed out that the company estimated that it would take the Inland Revenue about five man years to calculate the amounts due to former employees. However, as there is no evidence to show how many hours were actually worked the process seems flawed.

Irene Adams: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that part of the difficulty relates to the employees' contracts? Often, home workers are not sure whether they are contracted to a sub-contractor or to the actual manufacturing company. Part of the difficulty with fair estimate agreements is that employees do not actually know who is employing them.

Mark Hoban: I understand the hon. Lady's comment. In the case that I am describing, however, the worker is employed by the person making the rubber parts. There is a clear contractual relationship between the employee and the employer so, thankfully, that confusion does not arise.
	When the Bill comes into effect and an enforcement notice is issued against Industrial Rubber, to what extent will the measure apply retrospectively? The company is a manufacturing business so, given the lapse of time, there is a question as to what resources will be available to pay the compensation to which the home workers may be entitled. When the Inland Revenue considers how enforcement notices are to be applied to businesses, I hope that it will bear in mind the problems encountered by employers in implementing fair estimate agreements and the complexity of working out back pay.

Irene Adams: I refer the hon. Gentleman to a report on home workers and the minimum wage that the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs has just completed in which the Inland Revenue states that it is working on precisely the part of the agreement that he is talking about.

Mark Hoban: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that information. Not only will I read that report, but I will send a copy to the company in my constituency. However, I fear that it is too late for many people. It is now more than three years since the fair estimate agreements were put in place, and a lot of employees may have lost out in the process, as a consequence of legislation being introduced in haste, with perhaps insufficient consultation and consideration of the implementation problems.
	I wish to conclude by saying that I hope that the Inland Revenue will look carefully at such cases and at the complexity of the calculations involved and the difficulty that the Government have acknowledged in consulting on a replacement for fair estimate agreements. I also hope that they will consider the interests of not just past employees, but future employees—those people whose livelihoods depend on the financial viability of the firm—and ensure that their jobs are secure, as well as looking after the interests of those who have been employed previously by that company.

Stephen Timms: With the leave of the House, I wish to thank all those hon. Members who have contributed for supporting the Bill. In particular, I thank the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) for his sympathetic understanding of the reasons why my hon. Friend the Minister for Employment Relations, Industry and the Regions has been unable to lead this debate, as he would have wished to do this evening.
	The hon. Gentleman asked me to say something about the Bebb Travel appeal. As he indicated, on 16 April, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal in August 2002. The three judges ruled that, under section 19 of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, enforcement officers may not issue enforcement notices on behalf of former workers. He also asked me about the costs. The Inland Revenue was ordered to pay costs of £9,420.
	The ruling on the interpretation of the 1998 Act may be perhaps correct in the strict legal sense, but the key point is what policy Parliament wanted to enact. In a sense, the ruling demonstrates the wisdom of the decision to introduce the Bill, as it will make the position clear beyond doubt.
	The Bill will restore the position to what we understood it to be last August—once more, officers will be able to issue enforcement notices in respect of former workers—but those cases covering former workers that had been partly processed before August 2002, under the 1998 Act, and put on hold while the appeal was brought, which may well be what happened in the case referred to by the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban), will have to be restarted because of the court ruling.
	We have, of course, logged the details of all the cases involving former workers that have been brought to our attention since August. I do not have any update on the number of those cases beyond the figure of 250, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, that was provided in February. During the next few weeks, we shall review the position on all those cases, so that we can make a running start when the Bill comes into force.
	I understand that my hon. Friend the Minister for Employment Relations, Industry and the Regions said in Committee that the Government would continue to pursue the appeal to the Court of Appeal, but not necessarily to the House of Lords. We believe that that decision was right. We did not know last autumn that we would obtain the Bill, and we believed that we had a good case that should be argued before the Court of Appeal. We have now lost, and on the basis of the debate, I am confident that the Bill will be passed. My hon. Friend has obviously considered the issue and taken the view that it would not make sense to take the appeal to the House of Lords.
	The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk asked me about implementing the Bill with immediate effect. Of course, we cannot do so because clause 2(2) states:
	"This Act comes into force at the end of the period of two months beginning on the day on which it is passed."
	So that is the position in the absence of an amendment to that subsection.
	Nevertheless, the point of principle that he raised is perfectly fair. We have taken advice from the Cabinet Office that the two-month lead period should only be waived in exceptional circumstances: for example, emergency legislation on terrorism. He gave a number of examples, which I acknowledge. I think that he will accept, however, that the Bill is not really in the category to which the Cabinet Office advice refers. As the Bill will be retroactive in effect, I hope that he will take the view that it will ensure that there is a fair settlement of all the outstanding cases without undue delay.
	The hon. Gentleman also asked about interest. The legislation does not envisage the addition of interest to wage arrears identified in an enforcement notice. If the debt is claimed through the county court, however, interest on debts can usually be claimed at the rate of 8 per cent. per annum. He talked about the question of three years versus six years, on which the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) also commented. He attributed to the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk the view that the period should be three years—I do not think that he argued that position tonight, although he has put the case previously; his concern tonight was more in relation to whether guidance should be given to companies to keep the information for six years. Some might argue that that was an additional burden on business, but I thought that he made a fair case for that change. It is an interesting suggestion and we shall consider the point carefully.
	I am grateful to other Members who have spoken for their support: the hon. Member for Twickenham, to some of whose comments I have referred, and the hon. Member for Perth (Annabelle Ewing). The hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) raised a number of concerns, and my hon. Friend the Minister for Employment Relations, Industry and the Regions was also interested in some of his points about home workers. I understand that the case is still under appeal, and the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I am not familiar with the details of it. It might be best if I were to write to the hon. Gentleman to pick up some of the fair points that he has made on behalf of his constituents.
	I am delighted that the Bill has commanded such wide support, and I am sure that all of us would wish it to be implemented as soon as possible, given the two-month period to which we have referred.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

ADJOURNMENT (MAY)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 25 (Periodic adjournments),
	That this House, at its rising on Thursday 1st May, do adjourn till Tuesday 6th May 2003.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
	Question agreed to.

Princess Royal and Royal Shrewsbury Hospital Trusts

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]

Peter Bradley: I am very grateful for the opportunity tonight to raise my concerns and those of my constituents about the proposal currently being considered by the Secretary of State for Health and his ministerial colleagues to merge the Princess Royal and the Royal Shrewsbury hospital trusts. The Princess Royal is, of course, the hospital that serves Telford, the Wrekin and the east of Shropshire. I am grateful too for the opportunity to raise the implications of that proposal for my constituents.
	I also want to touch on the scope of the consultation that has recently been concluded and its quality—the way in which it has been conducted. In the course of my comments, I hope that the Minister will accept that I will be expressing the views of a great many of my constituents. I am sure that if my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (David Wright) is fortunate in catching your eye, Mr. Speaker, he will make similar points.
	It goes without saying that hospitals are important places. They are not just places that provide health care but local landmarks that help communities define their identity. People feel very strongly about their hospitals and take pride in them.
	Certainly when I was a councillor in the Millbank ward in Westminster some years ago, the Conservative Government's announcement of the closure of Westminster hospital was met with almost as much alarm, despair and anger as were many of the depredations visited on the electors by Shirley Porter and Barry Legg, and their colleagues in the administration of Westminster city council. People had been born in that hospital and had given birth to their own children there; it was part of the cultural fabric of this part of Westminster, and they felt its passing very bitterly. I do not need to remind the Minister of the passions aroused in Kidderminster, not far from Telford and the Wrekin, when the hospital there was perceived to be under threat.
	Hospitals are important in many ways, particularly in new towns such as Telford, because at this stage of the town's development, there are not many landmarks to steer by. We have no league football club, although we are very proud of Telford United and we look forward eagerly to seeing Telford play derby matches against Shrewsbury Town next season. We have no theatre, although one is planned, and the sooner it is developed the better. There are many reasons to visit Telford, but its nightlife is not one of them.
	The town puts me in mind of the famous comment that Rayner Banham made about Los Angeles in his seminal book on that city, in which he spoke of 50 suburbs in search of a city centre. Telford does not have 50 suburbs, but the comment is not entirely inappropriate. It is a town seeking its identity. The suburbs are not so much in search of a town centre as fleeing it since USS imposed car parking charges there.
	The Princess Royal hospital is important to us because we fought for it hard. It was built in 1989 after a long struggle. Many people, particularly in the west of the county, fought against the hospital's development, and they have continued to campaign against it, explicitly or implicitly, ever since. The hospital's future is of immense actual and symbolic importance, and I am sure that the Minister recognises that. I know from his speeches in the House that he is proud of his constituency and the landmarks that define it and its community. He will therefore understand the points that I am making.

David Wright: Does my hon. Friend agree that the history of Shropshire's health economy has been dominated by Shrewsbury? One of the concerns of many people in Telford was that it was so hard to get a hospital built there. Families who have lived there all their lives had, for many years, travelled miles down the motorway or the A road to use hospital services in Shrewsbury, and Telford's hospital was so fruitful because people no longer had to do that.

Peter Bradley: My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I shall elaborate on it later.
	We should not forget in this very mobile age that many of our constituents do not have access to their own transport. That is particularly true in Telford, where there are pockets of deprivation, and people find it extremely difficult to travel to Shrewsbury for their health care. As my hon. Friend will know, the problem is particularly acute for the families and friends of mental health patients, many of whom come from difficult backgrounds where mobility is a problem. It is all the more important that those families should be able to provide support to their relatives in the Shelton hospital in the west of the county.
	It is worth noting, too, the reluctance of consultants based at the Royal Shrewsbury hospital to travel down the motorway to Telford. I understand that people like to be based in one place, rather than two or three, but it has often been suggested to me that one reason why decision making in Shropshire's health economy has rested in Shrewsbury is the power of the consultants, not least because they are rather fond of nipping round the corner from the hospital to earn money from their private practice nearby. Mobility, transport and distance are very important issues for all those reasons.
	With the Labour Government committed to the national health service, there have been many significant improvements in the east of the county from which both hospitals have benefited. Shropshire health authority's budget doubled between 1997 and 2001—and that does not take account of the most recent comprehensive spending review and the exponential increase in funding that will take place in the next three years. The numbers of consultants and doctors are up, we have more nurses and treatments, and our waiting lists are down. We should celebrate all of that, but in a climate of expansion of, and investment in, the health service I do not want to talk any more about the survival of the Princess Royal hospital. Too often, that is the issue for many of my constituents who, like me, want to talk about growth, development and expansion.
	That development is certainly justified by the growth of Telford and the Wrekin. Telford is the growth point for the west midlands. Between 1991 and 2001, its population grew by 16,000—a 12 per cent. increase—and the town is one of the fastest 20 growth points in England. Development is also justified according to the indices of clinical need in our part of the county. We have one of the poorest health profiles in the west midlands. Sixty per cent. of the population of Telford and the Wrekin live in the top 25 per cent. of the most deprived wards in the country, compared with a national average of 35 per cent. Forty per cent. of children in Telford and Wrekin live in families claiming some form of benefit, against a national average of 27 per cent., so there is a significantly greater proportion of such children in our neighbourhood. Half the wards in Telford and Wrekin are in the top 25 per cent. of wards with the poorest health and disability profile. A third of them are in the top 25 per cent. of wards with the poorest housing.
	In more clinical terms, we have above average fertility, with the highest levels in the most deprived wards. Life expectancy for both men and women is lower than the national average, and premature death from heart disease is significantly above the national average, as, indeed, is premature death from cancer.

David Wright: My hon. Friend is outlining in detail issues of deprivation in Telford and the Wrekin. One reason why primary care trusts were established was to look at the health care needs of people in the area. Does he agree that we should bed the primary care trust in before we proceed to examine a merger of our major general hospitals?

Peter Bradley: My hon. Friend is right. We owe a debt of gratitude to the Minister, to whom we made representations last year. We were concerned about the unseemly haste of the consultation on the merger, which was launched just a fortnight before Shropshire health authority passed into history and the two PCTs—Telford and Wrekin PCT and Shropshire county PCT—came into existence. It seemed to us and, evidently, the Minister, who deferred the start of the consultation, that that was prejudging the issue and putting the cart before the horse, hardly allowing the two most important organisations in our health economy to get their feet under the desk before considering an important development in the structure of health care delivery in Shropshire.
	If the merger was going to help focus investment in Telford and the Wrekin and help the Princess Royal hospital address the growing needs to which I have just referred, I would not hesitate to support it. Indeed, I support the idea of merger in principle. In principle, I believe in a truly national NHS where there are no market mechanisms or false demarcation lines between one area of delivery and another.
	Of course I would support the principle of merger, if I could be convinced that it would meet the needs of my constituents, cut bureaucracy costs and transfer money to the frontline of health care. However, I have grave misgivings about the practical details of what we are being asked to consider. I know that they are shared by my hon. Friend the Member for Telford. Before his time, they were certainly shared by his predecessor, Bruce Grocott. Yet the proposals for merger are silent on the issues that are of the greatest importance to us. It is because of that silence that we have serious concerns.
	Those concerns are based on bitter experience. For years, Shropshire health authority promised us a reconfiguration of acute services. It recognised, as we did, that our constituents in the east of the county were under-resourced and under-provided for. It was recognised that there needed to be a rebalancing of health care provision. However, every year, in spite of the pledges and commitments made by the health authority, and in the face generally of opposition from Shrewsbury and the west of the county, the health authority failed to deliver and, indeed, failed my constituents.
	We are now being asked to accept that a merger will put an end to what has too often been unseemly and bitter rivalry between the west of the county and the east, between the Royal Shrewsbury and the Princess Royal hospitals. Many of my constituents see merger less as a warm embrace than as a more subtle form of strangulation. They do not see the merger as a partnership between equals. Instead, they see it as a takeover. They regard it as the absorption of a smaller hospital by a larger hospital; the creation of a satellite that can be extinguished at will. At best, the merger, in my view, in the absence of a development plan for the Princess Royal hospital, will lock in the imbalances in resourcing and provision to which I have referred for the next generation at least.
	Despite Telford's growing needs and despite the fact that the Princess Royal hospital has a larger catchment area than the Royal Shrewsbury, the Royal Shrewsbury has almost twice the budget of the PRH. It has three times the number of consultants. It has well over 500 beds compared with the PRH, which has fewer than 400. It has about 1,200 nurses compared with the 800 of the PRH. Critically, it has 12 countywide specialisms compared with the two that are based at the PRH. Every attempt over the years to rebalance that imbalance has failed.
	There was a vigorous campaign in recent years to locate maternity services at the PRH. Every demographic and clinical index set out the argument that maternity services should be based at the PRH. However, that campaign failed. More recently, with the closure of Copthorne South at the Royal Shrewsbury, for sensible reasons—the buildings were falling down—there was a tremendous opportunity to relocate some of the services to the PRH, where there is ample room for development. That opportunity was missed.
	It is not only in the acute sector that imbalance exists. It exists also in the mental health sector. A promise was made by the Shropshire health authority to develop acute beds on the site of the Princess Royal. That commitment was reneged upon. There is a need to redevelop the Shelton, which is one of the last Victorian asylums to be closed. The smart money is not on getting our provision in the east of the county. It is on redevelopment over in the west.
	When primary care groups were established in 1999, Shrewsbury and Atcham had 3.5 per cent. above its fair share target while Telford and Wrekin had 6 per cent. below its target. Even now, with a generous settlement on the Telford and Wrekin primary care trust of a 34 per cent. increase in funding over the next three years, we still face an annual shortfall of £12 million a year.
	The issue is equity. I am sure I speak for my hon. Friend the Member for Telford when I say that we do not wish to disadvantage anyone in the west of the county, but we want to improve access to health care for our constituents in the east. The merger should have offered us a once in a generation opportunity to redress the balance, redistribute specialties, address local health needs, and to develop the Princess Royal—
	It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without question put.
	Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Gillian Merron.]

Peter Bradley: —and to develop the Princess Royal hospital and its ability to attract top consultants. But that has not happened. The merger has not even attempted to do that. It has been made clear to me, for example by David Nicholson, the regional director of the Department of Health in a letter, that the proposal is to merge two organisations managerially, and because of that, that the proposal cannot address issues of provision of services. The question that I would ask, and which my hon. Friend asked earlier, is how we can make decisions on one without regard to the other.
	The consultation has been flawed from the outset. As we discussed earlier, it was initially launched just a fortnight before the PCTs' establishment, which fuelled suspicions of a fait accompli. Those have not yet evaporated. I am grateful for the Minister's intervention then. He will not be surprised that I am not so grateful for his subsequent decision not to intervene to ensure a proper integration between the consultation that has taken place on merger and the development of local delivery plans by the PCTs. Decisions about structures seem to have been afforded greater priority than decisions about the delivery of health care.
	The consultation that we recently experienced was a shambles. It was inadequate and misleading. Material was poorly circulated. The consultation was poorly publicised. At public meetings, the staff representing the NHS often outnumbered the public. The presentation of a fait accompli often interfered with people's preparedness to contribute to the public consultation.
	Telford and Wrekin council's health and care scrutiny commission has done a good job of assessing the consultation and the issues that have arisen. Its report states that it does not believe that
	"members of the public and hospital employees have had an adequate opportunity to consider and respond to merger issues. It is concerned that the proposed merger has been presented as a fait accompli. It is unhappy that possible configurations involving the Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt Orthopaedic Hospital have been excluded. It is far from persuaded that a major structural merger can be contemplated without attending in more detail to related service implications."
	The report goes on to state that staff at the PRH
	"said they had not even seen a copy of the full consultation document."
	With regard to GPs in the Telford and Wrekin area, the report says that
	"they felt unable to form a view on the merger owing to their lack of information on the subject."
	That was a problem shared by the voluntary sector. The document goes on to state:
	"The Shropshire Council for Voluntary Services (CVS) considered that they had not received enough information about the proposed merger during this consultation process."
	Even the Shropshire and Staffordshire strategic health authority expressed serious concern. It stated that
	"the recently-established SHA would have preferred public merger consultation to have been postponed until at least later this year. It was stressed the 'historical and political tensions' need to be overcome if a single acute hospital trust is to work effectively."
	The scrutiny commission concluded:
	"The Commission felt that the consultation failed to engage the public due to the very narrow terms of reference prescribed. The public were unable to debate the areas of most concern to them, i.e. service configuration and in the view of the Commission this meant the consultation was seriously flawed."
	Those serious views expressed by the commission were borne out by the views expressed to me. A consultant at the PRH, Bruce Summers, wrote to me to say:
	"I am by no means convinced that a merger will be in the best interests of patients who currently look upon the Princess Royal as their local hospital. My experiences over the last 13 years are such that I do not have any faith in a combined Trust Board and combined management to provide equity of healthcare for all patients in Shropshire."
	Another consultant, Peter May, wrote to say:
	"Only a minority of the Telford medical staff are in favour . . . In truth professional staff have been tired by the endless wrangling. There seems to have been an unstoppable pressure from above",
	and adds in parenthesis that it is
	"the same pressure that merged Redditch and Worcester, closing Kidderminster".
	He went on to say:
	"Telford fears that its hospital will be downgraded after merger."
	The nursing union and other unions at the PRH said:
	"We have now consulted with our members but there appears to be an air of apathy and expectance that the merger will go ahead regardless of our views and concerns."
	Certainly from the soundings that I took among staff at the PRH, the overwhelming view was against merger and there was deep concern that their views were not being heard.
	The same is true of GPs in my constituency. Graham Thompson, a local doctor, wrote to me to say:
	"We feel that the share out is too lopsided in favour of Shrewsbury when in fact most clinical need is in the East of the County."
	Even the Telford and Wrekin PCT, which in the end voted for the merger, wrote to me in the following terms:
	"That decision will not be made with enthusiasm; the PCT remains as concerned to avoid any drift of services or 'centre of gravity' to the Shrewsbury site as I know you are yourself."
	That is hardly a ringing endorsement. That view is held not just by those in the medical community, but by people outside as well.
	I received a letter from Lilleshall and Donnington parish council, which suspects that
	"funding will be diverted from the Princess Royal Hospital, to aid Shrewsbury, thus devaluing"
	the hospital's
	"ability to serve Telford and its surrounding areas."
	Similarly, Wrockwardine Wood and Trench parish council in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Telford wrote to me to say:
	"we are now in danger of having"
	our hospital
	"taken away from the area. We need more services in Telford and Wrekin, not less."
	Again, those are hardly ringing endorsements for the merger proposal.

David Wright: Does my hon. Friend agree that the process could have been positive had a development plan been in place for the Princess Royal hospital? Significant development land is available at the hospital and the way in which it is designed means that services can be added on to existing wings. We can still make the process positive, but we must have a development plan.

Peter Bradley: My hon. Friend is right. There is a lot of land at the PRH and it has a huge potential. There is also a great deal of commitment in the local community. Staff at the PRH are anxious that they are not being allowed to fulfil their potential in serving their community. The hospital has difficulties in securing and retaining staff, especially consultants, because it has relatively little to offer. That in turn feeds our constituents' anxieties because they think that in the absence of specialisms and a development plan, the future of their hospital is in doubt. The merger proposal makes it difficult to dissuade them from that point of view. Many regard the proposal as the thin end of the wedge because it omits to discuss the future of the hospital and does not set out a development plan. That is why we are worried that a merger before a redistribution of services in the county will lock in the imbalance to which I referred. That is one reason why I believe that I would betray my constituents and their interests if I supported it.
	One further issue only came to light in recent days. In the past we have been reassured that even if Shropshire health authority let us down and the merger proposal was not accompanied by a development plan, the introduction of PCTs and their commissioning power would give Telford and Wrekin PCT an influential say in the future of our hospital and an important role not just in underpinning its future but in helping to develop its future through its commissioning power and funding. As I said, however, despite the generous increase in funding for the PCT over the next three years—I acknowledge that 34 per cent. is at the top of the range—and the 14 per cent. increase in capital investment over the next three years, we are starting from an annual deficit of £12 million, which means that we are 9 per cent. short of our fair share.
	The spend per patient in Telford and Wrekin every year through the national health service is about £719, which compares with a national average of £819. That severely compromises the commissioning power of our primary care trust with regard to the Princess Royal hospital.
	As I understand it, the problem has further intensified in the past week. As recently as March, the strategic health authority confirmed that, as I believe has previously been the practice in hospital mergers, the NHS would write off at the point of merger the accumulated debt of the two hospitals, which amounts to about £4 million or £5 million. As of 11 April, when a meeting took place between the health authority and the PCTs, the rules have been changed so that any debt recovery is within the strategic health authority area and not the NHS as a whole. That will come as extremely unwelcome news not only to Shropshire but to Staffordshire, which will have to pick up its share. It will also be unwelcome not only to the acute sector but to the primary sector, which will also have to reach into its already pressurised budgets to find its contribution. Yet again, the purchasing power of our PCT and its ability to support the future of our hospital will be still further undermined.
	The Government rightly have a vision of the NHS that puts patients first. Of course I applaud that, but I suggest that the plans that are currently before us meet the needs of the bureaucrats before those of our community. What is worse is that, without cast-iron, copper-bottomed assurances about the future of our hospital, they could prove disastrous for my constituents.
	If the Minister cannot find it in himself to reject the proposal or defer it until the issues that I have raised are properly considered, a well-conceived argument for merger is advanced and the health service communities and wider communities are properly consulted, I entreat him to give us assurances not only that the Princess Royal hospital will not be undermined by the merger that is currently being contemplated, but that the hospital will be developed and expanded to meet the needs and expectations of its staff and the community that they serve.

Paul Marsden: I will keep my remarks very brief.
	I am dismayed and disappointed by the remarks of the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley). He talked in the language of great misgivings, bitter experience and rivalry. Those terms were very appropriate under the Conservatives before 1997, when there was bitter rivalry between the Royal Shrewsbury and Princess Royal hospitals. That is certainly no longer the case. I am afraid that he most certainly speaks as one of the minority—the tiny minority.
	Having checked with the PRH and the RSH tonight, I can say that it is clear that there is overwhelming support for the merger in Shropshire and Telford and the Wrekin. Seventeen out of 18 stakeholders, including community health councils, local authorities, the trusts, primary care trusts and the hospitals themselves, are in favour of merger. The 18th stakeholder has passed no motion in favour or against merger and expressed no opinion. There have been 35 meetings with the public and staff to explain what is happening, and there has been overwhelming support.
	I genuinely wish that the hon. Member for The Wrekin had not been quite so strident in expressing his views. If the merger is delayed, it will be at a grave cost to the hospitals. A population of about 500,000 is needed to make a hospital viable in this day and age.
	The joint population of Shropshire, Telford and the Wrekin is about 436,000. However, if he expects that the Princess Royal hospital can survive alone as one of the two smallest district general hospitals in the country, he is sadly mistaken. All the clinicians, GPs, consultants and other health care professionals are on board. The public are on board—more than 95 per cent. are supportive. It is incredible to think that the hon. Member for The Wrekin, and possibly the hon. Member for Telford (David Wright), too, are against the proposed merger. I urge the Minister to think carefully and to take everybody's views on board. We want a thriving, sustainable future for Shropshire health care services, and if we delay on this proposal we jeopardise the futures of the Royal Shrewsbury hospital and the Princess Royal hospital.

David Wright: I want to respond briefly to the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden). In general terms, neither I nor my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley) is, as he suggests, opposed in principle to the merger of the two hospitals: we are interested in ensuring that a medium to long-term development plan is in place to ensure the future success of the two hospitals. The problem that communities in Telford have had over many years is that we have not had any reassurance from numerous Ministers—I have to say that my hon. Friend the Minister is excellent at liaising with Back Benchers—about a long-term commitment to ensuring that we have a sustainable hospital in Telford. That is what we are seeking in this Adjournment debate and have tried to seek throughout the consultation process.
	I am extremely concerned by the final point made by my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin about the possible budget deficit for the two hospitals, which may mean that resources have to be found from the wider health authority and strategic health authority economy in Shropshire and Staffordshire. I hope that the Minister will reassure me that we can look to some central provision to support the strategic health authority in progressing the merger and ensuring that, if it goes ahead, it is successful, so that the needs of both communities—in Shrewsbury and Atcham and in Telford—are met, and we have the highest-quality health services that we can possibly have for our people.

David Lammy: I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley) on securing the debate on an issue that is important to him and to his constituents. I commend him for the assiduous way in which he has continued to lobby on behalf of the people of The Wrekin and Telford. He, like the people of Telford and Shrewsbury and the surrounding area, is eager to secure the very best-quality health services that those communities expect. In that sense, I hope that I share common ground with him and, indeed, with my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (David Wright).
	The proposed merger of the Princess Royal hospital and NHS trust and the Royal Shrewsbury hospital and NHS trust was subject to public consultation following a decision to merge on 26 June 2002. The consultation ran between December 2002 and March 2003. As my hon. Friend will know, following that consultation the chairs of the two trusts decided to merge the two hospitals. The matter was then automatically referred to the Secretary of State for Health for a final decision. I am currently considering my decision on the merger, so my hon. Friend's debate is timely. I welcome this further opportunity to hear his views and assure him that I will take them fully into account as I consider every last detail of the merger plan over the next few weeks.
	It will be useful if I remind hon. Members of the background to the consultation and give an indication of the issues that I will consider before making any decision.
	As my hon. Friend said, much local history surrounds the proposed merger of the two trusts. Although they have separate boards, for several years they have shared an executive management structure and they collaborate closely on clinical networks and services.
	Before approval to go to formal consultation, the two trusts prepared an expression-of-interest document. It set out a range of reasons for an acute hospitals merger based on factors such as the effective use of resources and building on the existing shared arrangements at chief executive level. As my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin said, I met him and my hon. Friend the Member for Telford before the start of the public consultation to discuss his request that it should be delayed. I am grateful for the credit that he gave me for delaying the consultation for a period of weeks. I stated that it must be as
	"open a consultation as possible."
	As my hon. Friend would expect, I shall look to that condition.
	I also stressed that no service change is being proposed in the merger discussions. I listened to my hon. Friend's comments about that. As he knows, the consultation specifically covers structural merger and is not about the services provided by the hospitals. However, I am fully aware that some stakeholders are anxious about the future provision of services. I have looked for them to be addressed in the merger proposal.
	Let me summarise the key consultation issues. The consultation was on the proposal that the two existing NHS trusts should be dissolved and a new NHS trust established from 1 October 2003. It focused solely on organisational benefits, both managerial and clinical. It states:
	"The proposal does not discuss nor propose any changes to the services provided by the hospitals. There are no plans to change clinical services as a consequence of this proposed merger."
	The second point is very important. No other organisations were involved in the proposal. The catchment area for the trusts covers the unitary authority of Telford and Wrekin, largely served by the Princess Royal hospital, and the whole county of Shropshire and parts of mid Wales, largely served by the Royal Shrewsbury hospital. The range of consultees reflected the interested stakeholders in the catchment area.
	The consultation document set out three options: reverting to separate management arrangements; doing nothing and having continued collaboration; and merging the Princess Royal and the Royal Shrewsbury NHS trusts. The third option was the preferred option. The form of the consultation had two elements. The Secretary of State has conducted a formal consultation with the community health councils of Shropshire and Montgomery and with the staff of the two hospitals. A public consultation has also taken place so that Ministers—in this case, me—could decide whether there is local support for the proposals.
	It is important to remember that the consultation specifically provides that no part of the proposals related to a plan to change any services. Indeed, the consultation is explicit about the commitment to retain accident and emergency, critical care and paediatrics at both hospitals. An independent chairman, Mrs. Cessa Moore, who has no direct connection with the two trusts, was appointed to lead the consultation. She established a consultation project board to oversee the process.
	The project was led by a project director, Mr. Neil Lockwood, again with no direct interest in the result of the consultation.
	Membership of the consultation project board included the chief officers of the two community health councils. The chief executive of the two trusts was also a member to ensure a link between the consultation process and the ongoing activities of the hospitals.
	My hon. Friend will be aware that section 11 of the Health and Social Care Act 2001 puts a new duty on the NHS to make arrangements to involve and consult the public in planning services. The Department has recently published a document entitled "Strengthening Accountability" providing policy and practice guidance to support the NHS in meeting the requirements of this duty.
	That Act also gave new powers to the overview and scrutiny committees of local authorities to review and scrutinise the planning, operation and development of health services. That ensures that the democratically elected representatives of local people, with responsibility for their well-being, have proper influence over the NHS. Those powers also came into effect on 1 January.
	Overview and scrutiny committees have a particularly important role to play when a substantial change or variation to services is proposed. The NHS must consult the overview and scrutiny committee on any such proposal. The committee has a specific right to refer the proposals to the Secretary of State if it considers that public involvement has been inadequate or that the proposal itself is flawed.
	Any consultation documentation needs to demonstrate that it was clear, simple, concise and could be readily understood. It also has to be readily available in both its full and summary forms, and all groups must have had sufficient time to consider their responses. I shall be looking to ensure that those statutory obligations have been met as I consider my decision.
	I shall also be concerned to ensure that the analysis of responses was both accurate and comprehensive, covering both positive and negative aspects raised as part of the consultation. I will pay particular interest to the responses given by the local authority scrutiny boards, clinicians, nurses and other hospital staff, as well as the views of hon. Members.
	My hon. Friend has many times made his misgivings on the merger clear, in particular the omission of Shropshire's third hospital, the Robert Jones and Agnes Hunt orthopaedic hospital. I am also aware of my hon. Friend's view that in any merger the west of the county might tend to dominate in decision making about access to services and facilities, potentially adversely affecting services at the Princess Royal hospital.
	I recognise those concerns and in making my decision I shall be mindful of what is said in our recently published document, "Keeping the NHS Local". That states that hospital services need to change—

Paul Marsden: Will the Minister give way?

David Lammy: I will not give way at this stage.
	That states that hospital services need to change if we are to continue to meet patients' needs and improve access to local services and that biggest is not always best. We recognise that patients want more, not fewer local services.
	Mention has been made of the expenditure of the trusts. After any merger of two NHS trusts, the income and expenditure account of a new trust would be set to zero. However, under resource accounting rules, strategic health authorities are not allowed to write off accumulated deficits of trusts within their health economy area. Appropriate financial recovery plans will therefore have to be drawn up irrespective of whether the Princess Royal and Royal Shrewsbury hospitals trusts merge. The local strategic health authority will consider financial recovery plans with stakeholders across its health economy should the merger go forward.
	As I said at the beginning of the debate, I welcome this opportunity to listen to my hon. Friend's views on the merger. I listened intently when he and my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (David Wright) came to see me and continued to lobby hard on behalf of their constituents on the issue. I am also pleased that we have been able to make record financial allocations to their areas because they were pressing on the financial issues as well. I listened then and I delayed the consultation. I believe that I did well by the people of Telford, the Wrekin and Shrewsbury, and I hope that in the decisions I will take in the next few weeks, based on close examination of all sides of the argument, that I will do well by the people of—
	The motion having been made at Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
	Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.
	Corrections
	Official Report, 14 April 2003: in col. 766, Division No. 170, delete "Goggins, Paul" from the Noes and insert in the Ayes,
	In col. 778, the first petition should read as follows:

PETITIONS
	 — 
	PHARMACIES

Hugh Bayley: More than 5,000 of my constituents have signed a petition expressing concern that local pharmacies in York might be caused to close if the Government were to implement the recommendation of the Office of Fair Trading to allow pharmacies to open without approval from NHS authorities. The petition is signed by Susan Hargrave, a member of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, and many others, and reads as follows:
	To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
	The Humble Petition of Residents of York sheweth that they wish to preserve local pharmacies and safeguard their continued services to local communities. Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House urges the Government to reject the proposals of the Office of Fair Trading that would allow unrestricted opening of pharmacies able to dispense NHS prescriptions.
	And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
	To lie upon the Table.